Well actually, I would've thought that quite clearly the first is worse. If you have made an attempt at rationality, then that is better then having made no attempt and just leapt to a conclusion. That's what's so good about reasoning in the first place. Even if the same conclusion is reached, the use of a degree of reasoning, following a fairly logical chain, still shows thought on the issue, rather than blind belief, which you before said (or implied, I can't remember) was worse.
Answer me this; do you regard someone who flatly disagrees with your points in a simplistic, 'Nah, you're wrong', way, without any additional argument higher or lower than someone that attempts to understand a situation and answer your views ona point by point basis? I would think the latter would be regarded more highly. For the same reason of using some sort of thought to reach the same conclusion, rather than just making the conclusion. It's like doing a maths problem without any working; you aren't going to get full marks for it.
