I am fascinated by logic. (I’m not necessarily good at it, but I am fascinated by it.)
A truly logical debate is never lost. True logicians only care about logical truth. When true logicians debate, they are calculating. It is like both of them are working at a chalkboard or a whiteboard, trying to get a list of numbers to add up. A calculator doesn’t get angry about the sum of a list of numbers, and a logician doesn’t get angry about the result of a logical proof.
A true logician is never a partisan. He is willing to embrace the truth, no matter what he is arguing about, to the very limits of his ability to express the truth.
(Logic still must be built on mathematical foundations. Just being a logician doesn’t give you an omniscient insight into metamathematics; thus logicians are not required to embrace truths that they cannot express in well-formed formulas.)
But there are also uninformed skeptics, there are philosophical “agnostics,” there are neutral, uneducated people who can be persuaded by ordinary “arguments.” Most of them are not disciplined enough for extended bouts of pure logic, but they can usually be approached with “ordinary discussions” and “meaningful conversations.” These people believe in “ordinary facts,” which are less persuasive to pure logicians.
But some people claim that they want to “argue,” by which they mean, they want to engage in interpersonal nastiness, with no loyalty to logic, empiricism, or “ordinary facts.”
With that in mind, read the post at the link: