Well, if you "keep your temper, stick to your guns, and don't back down," that is, if you are really determined nobody is going to persuade you, you stand a good chance of scoring more debating points than the other guy. But when the only purpose of the discussion is to score points it gets kind of uninteresting. What is more interesting is a reference to facts not everyone knows and which which might change someone's mind, or a fresh perspective.

The engaging thing about Doug R., who I almost never agree with, is that he sometimes admits he is mistaken. Never on major points, of course, but on some factual issues. That can be quite disarming. On the other hand, I often agree with McGrath. But one has the impression he could never possibly bring himself to admit a mistake, and that tends to put one off.

Am I wrong?

Am I wrong.