The reason why they cannot convince the other party is because they are debaters and they have their own opinions. Most importantly, it's their job not to throw in the towel. This reminds me of the profession of lawyer. Sometimes those whom they defend are clearly guilty, yet these lawyers eloquently defend their clients.
The purpose of debate is to persuade the third party, not the opponent. This is also called upward persuasion. Since the other party cannot be persuaded and will not give up, a third party must be the judge instead of a one-on-one stalemate. Just as the court needs a judge, it also needs a judge. When the lawyers on both sides insist on their own opinions and refuse to give in, the judge will try.
Debate is essentially a performance. Emotions and logic are definitely there, but sometimes capturing people's hearts is the most important thing. Sometimes the debates we see can be judged right or wrong based on common sense, so why debate? Winning on a common sense question does not prove that you are more proficient.
In the recently popular "Qi Pa Shuo", many players have their own designs. When she mentioned Mix, she would think of the "girly" qualities; when she mentioned Chen Ming, she would think of warmth and gentleness. The player who wins in the end is not necessarily the player with the strongest logic, but he must be the player with the best combination of logic and performance.
Narrative methods in the debate-light bulb narrative and searchlight narrative. When we express our opinions, we often express all our thoughts in one breath for fear of missing something. Like a lightbulb that lights up a room when turned on - this is the lightbulb narrative. This fails to take into account the feelings of the audience. You're happy, but the audience doesn't get the point. The more you talk, the more annoyed they become.
With searchlight narrative, you can’t see the whole thing, you don’t even know what I want to say, your attention must follow me.
For example, in order to protect animals, we advocate not buying or selling materials containing animal leather. If we say this: Our business will lead to a sharp decline in the numbers of crocodiles, bears, minks, and ostriches, leading to natural ecological imbalance and species destruction, so please stop buying animal leather bags and clothing. Is this the correct expression? Yes, but others have no feeling or impression after hearing it.
But let’s say it again using the searchlight method: the total number of people who died in wars in history is 6.19 million, and the same number of animals will be killed every three days. For humans, every war is hell, but for animals, every day on earth is hell.
At this point, although I did not say which animals are on the verge of extinction, nor did I call on everyone to boycott fur, the terrible situation of animals in human society must have reached your heart.
Debate is not only used in debate competitions and Qipa theory, it is also the way we speak, a tool to persuade others and to exercise our thinking.