How important is the “last word” in winning a debate?

[Perspicuo]

After about a couple of hours trying to find research about debates (googling 'debate+research+outcome' returned all the debates about everything that can be researched, and so did 'who+wins+a+debate'!):

Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/why-even-your-best-arguments-never-work-64910
Gun control? Abortion? The new social science behind why you're never able to convince friends or foes to even consider things from your side.

Lately, there’s been a growing emphasis on psychological explanations for such intransigence. There could be an entire book of syndicated newspaper columns that discuss "motivated reasoning"—the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms your existing beliefs. But research on human motivation also hints at a simpler and somewhat startling reason for the lack of flip-flopping: Nobody makes the type of arguments that are likely to change minds.

And there's nothing illogical about it.

The arguments people make are those that appear the strongest to themselves and the people who already agree with them. But such arguments tend to be meaningless to people who disagree.

How does this happen?

It starts with the universal desire to protect against threats to your self-image or self-worth. People are driven to view themselves in a positive light, and they will interpret information and take action in ways that preserve that view. The need to maintain self-worth is one reason we attribute our failures to external factors (bad luck), but our success to internal factors (skill.)

... and...

Research by Nyhan and Reifler on what they've termed the "backfire effect" also suggests that the more a piece of information lowers self-worth, the less likely it is to have the desired impact. Specifically, they have found that when people are presented with corrective information that runs counter to their ideology, those who most strongly identify with the ideology will intensify their incorrect beliefs.

Which is why Barack Obama is so good at communicating: He panders to patriotism, how good Americans are and how good "American" values are.


So, if you want to convince religionists, find some middle ground, good stuff about religion in general or their particular religion (charity, art). Then show them the holes in typical apologetic arguments. Also, it wouldn't hurt to glorify the achievements of mankind in terms of human rights, science and philosophy as the common inheritance of every human being. And glorify the country you're in and its achievements.

Be generous. Be more Sam Harris and less Chris Hitchens. And then blow the Bible to smithereens.

 

[Kharakov]

I am aware that I cannot convince those who want to disagree with me.

Is it impossible for you to convince someone by proxy?