critical stance

if a person indicates where they stand on an argument before explaining their reasoning or evidence, they are taking a critical stance; observable with the use of opinion-driven adjectives.

used in research/ persuasive writing to express your stance on an argument with the intention to explain your point in later paragraphs.
if they never explain their stance, misrepresent information, or make a claim on biased values, then that is “bias” not “stance.” or you could say they took a critical stance, but it was just bias in the end.

see one of the definitions of robert pattinson:
“a very overrated actor that looks like a heroin addict and stars in the equally overrated series twilight.”

although it’s not (or hasnt yet) been argued that the actor is “overrated”, the use of the adjective lets us know what stance the writer takes in that regard. if the reasoning for them to describe anything as overrated comes from a personal distaste towards anything mainstream, then that would be bias. however, if their reasoning comes from them observing the poor quality of acting and plot receiving more praise than other more deserving films and actors, simply because it appeals to cheesy wish-fulfillment for impressionable teens, they have used the word “overrated” to take a stance.
critical stance is not inherently bias, since the stance could be argued further with evidence when needed. however, while stance could be argued using logical reasoning, bias stems from personal values or ignorance.

another example just for fun
“the malicious judge wrongfully incarcerated the innocent defendant.”

before the argument that “the judge was wrong to sentence the defendant in the way they did” is even discussed , the writer has already taken a critical stance by insisting the judge has malicious intentions and the defendant is innocent. note that the writer/ speaker could be biased depending on the context.