Most people argue to win - that's often a mistake. In complex debates you'd be missing the point entirely. The golden outcome isn't to win - it's to win someone over.
The goal isn't to conquer the land they stand on, it's persuading the other person to cross the bridge you build for them. And occasionally, you might even meet them on more fertile ground somewhere in between.
Rather than pummeling your opponent into submission, build a gateway to a hidden universe of thought. But beware, only the brave can be won over. The boring and pious dogmatists get left behind. That's fine - it's their prerogative.
The minority you can win over will plant flags on your behalf and the intellectual adventures you can go on together may yield greater treasures than the solo victory you may have won alone.
Leading someone to a new insight isn't about delivering a powerful judo move, simultaneously disorientating and reframing their perspective. Instead, aim to shine a light on their assumptions and motivations. Let them discover the cracks for themselves.
Often we fight for land we do not seek to conquer - we fight because it's the default response to our position being threatened.
Winning is to debates what mirages are to the desert. The illusion of oasis. It is only when you step into it that you realise the poverty of the promised land. Unless your only goal was to water your ego, in which case, you've arrived!
