With regards to second spoiler: You mean those people who build one deficiency into an inalienable proof that your argument failed? Most human beings in fact? (Well I've done it so it must be that everyone else has /delusion)
It's well documented (meaning my heuristically observed opinion without any other evidence or studying) that it becomes about reputation and image vs integrity of conduct and content of argument. And I think a lot of arguments are 'won' by appeal to the first two rather than the second two. Except where patience, structure in debate and...yknow online is concerned. Because there's time to read and understand, not that many make that effort and maybe some are incapable.
But verbal arguments particularly tend to play off the subjective interpretation too much. If one side mishears the other and will not be convinced otherwise then the entire argument switches to a misheard stance of understanding and so is mutilated from the beginning.
Ok so I was answering that, then I kind of phased out. I mean something came up. And now the text is forever lost.
While I and everyone else is faillible. Because if we weren't... where would be the fun in that?! We're explorers, if we knew everything there'd be nothing to explore. (well frankly we're 90% couch pandas, 10% explorer).
It is a common stratagem to discard a whole line of reasoning due to one non essential mistake. I can respect that when I and the person doing it are fully aware of it, then it's a game.
But it's a whole other truckload/species of boring when it's due to logic-fail. I'm perfectly fine with people not having perhaps, the capacity / innate talent/however you want to call it to process data, I actually have much more respect for someone of average capacity thriving to understand something than pseudo intellectuals parroting something they don't themselves really understand (80% of the stuff I hear). If you can't create the logic on your own based on a small sample/partial synopsis of the data YOU DONT GET IT/It's over your head.
I for one am lucky I guess in that I can pretty much grasp anything near instantly. Though there are of course far brighter minds than I. I wish there were more per capita so I could learn more stuff from fellow humans. Though there's plenty of smart people on this forum for example. (not at all representative of general population, the 3/100 is common here, and there's quite a few 1 in 10,000 types.)
That's why I and I suspect quite a few others stick around on Typc.
Going back to mbti, I've often enjoyed conversations with INFJs as they often present similar data in wholy new, softer, perspectives. Often reaching similar conclusions and more importantly learning from each other. That's something I value immensely. So it's nice to be able to sit down and have a chat sometimes. Though having the same conversation while doing a barathon is multiple times more entertaining.
Now, we both know that we're a bunch of smart apes. That comes with lots of bagage. People lLaughing at what you say is status signaling, telling everyone around that you are high value and so are your opinions.. helps win arguments, attractiveness to win arguments, confidence wins arguments, tone of voice and not ending sentences on a higher pitch note wins arguments, how tall you are wins arguments, being a very attractive female will help you win arguments against men, etc. While all these things have, of course, nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Keep in mind that a debate is a sort of 'game'. If applied to most real life situations the traits needed to 'convince' in an argument are leadership traits in one way or another. These traits were never meant to win arguments, they were meant to create tribal leaders federating humans, increasing cooperation for added value for the whole group. (even if you're a shitty leader, if you can convince smart apes to work together that means increase survival rates on av. compared to people running amoc)