Winning a public debate is much more about rhetorical skills than being right. You can be very knowledgeable in a topic of your research, still lose because you can’t put it simple while your opponent has simple answers to complicated questions and a catch phrase and some slogans
Never claimed “winning” (in that sense) mattered, only that we can show facts don’t support a fool’s conclusion (ie, “show they’re a fool”).
Whether others care to recognize that or let themselves get misled by invalid rhetoric is up to them: some have better discernment than others.
Upholding facts (or logic & truth) so others can accept them when they’re ready (not to indulge their biases) is “winning” enough to me.
Humans still gonna human.
Winning a public debate is much more about rhetorical skills than being right. You can be very knowledgeable in a topic of your research, still lose because you can’t put it simple while your opponent has simple answers to complicated questions and a catch phrase and some slogans
Never claimed “winning” (in that sense) mattered, only that we can show facts don’t support a fool’s conclusion (ie, “show they’re a fool”). Whether others care to recognize that or let themselves get misled by invalid rhetoric is up to them: some have better discernment than others. Upholding facts (or logic & truth) so others can accept them when they’re ready (not to indulge their biases) is “winning” enough to me. Humans still gonna human.