Article misses the point that 'arguing to win' and 'arguing to learn' are actually carried out for two very different purposes. When 'arguing to win' in a political context, the purpose is almost never to persuade the person you're arguing against but to a) persuade any possibility undecided third party observers, which is something that can be accomplished through a wide range of techniques beyond just having the most solid argument b) to try and frame the discussion, and by extension that of all of public political discourse, a way that is most advantageous to your side - see what wiggin has just said about definitions and terms, but what he misses IMO is that these wars over language and semantics are the entire point of the exercise, and not an unfortunate side effect that results in two otherwise well meaning people unfortunately talking past each other.

The Romans and Greeks understood all this, and did not consider 'rhetoric' a dirty word but an art you had to be proficient at in order to call oneself educated with a straight face.

Perhaps if we in the modern world understood that too we wouldn't be in such a mess as we are today, because people with nefarious intentions sure as shit understand every word of what I wrote perfectly, and absolutely no qualms about using it to achieve their own self-serving ends.