Question

Rabbi, you often draw new, fundamental, and transversal insights in a Talmudic topic, but based on only one view, as if you ignore the other side of the dispute. Here are a few examples: 
1. In the article “What Is a Halakhic Effect?”, you base your approach on one view among the medieval authorities (Rishonim) regarding the resting of one’s animal on the Sabbath. But that is only one view—there is another view as well! 
2. In the article on halakhic territory and honoring one’s father and mother, you bring proof that one of the foundations of honoring one’s parents is considerations of halakhic territory, from the fact that the son is obligated to honor them only from their resources and not from his own. But again, that is only the view of the Rema! You ignore the view of the Shulchan Arukh’s author. 
3. Following Rabbi Shimon Shkop, you explain that the prohibition of “do not steal” is first and foremost legal, etc., and you base this on Rashi in the chapter HaKones. But Tosafot has a different view too!
 
In short, the question is: how can one base an important and fundamental insight on only one view and ignore the other view??