Supervisor appears to have a different scientific attitude
I think you may be attempting perfection (though you may
 not define it as such), but the reality of research is that it is constantly evolving, and may never mature into perfection.

Conflict, rejection and skepticism are all indeed 'part of the game'. If not your guide, then an editor, a reviewer or a fellow-researcher will (almost certainly) at some point refute your ideas. Many times they will not (and may not need to) justify themselves, which will add to the discomfort. 

If an idea is wrong, it will be pointed out at some stage, maybe before submission, or during review (and sometimes after publication). Even if this happens, it will not blot your career as a researcher (unless the mistake is very fundamental, targets other researchers wrongly or involves some kind of trickery). So you should do your due diligence and rest assured after. By due diligence, I mean being thorough, verifying and re-verifying until you are satisfied that your work is technically and logically sound, in all aspects.

Also, never forget that the work is a partnership between you and your guide. Any responsibility for mistakes is held jointly between both. The more junior you are, the greater is the guide's responsibility.