When bias can lead to good arguments.
Just got to thinking. While debating the most boneheaded mother****er ever on Comic Vine (kbroskywalker) I realised something interesting; the fact this guy was simultaneously so bad at debating and so inevitably fixed into one way of thinking, it forced him to constantly make his arguments and attack his opponents from new angles. The sheer plethora of methods he can come up with to carry on an obviously failing battle on his part is at least impressive but probably some kind of legendary feat. So, perhaps logic dictates that the longer he tries, the more likely he is to stumble upon a better argument?
If you're impartial (lol), and don't feel particularly passionate about reaching a certain conclusion (elevating particular characters, establishing certain rules for everyone else to follow in debates), chances are you won't rack your brains thinking of new ways to prove your point. You might do the only sane thing and move on (which soon I'm going to do, but for now you all still have me hooked).
So am I onto something or is this more resident shrink ILS bullshit? I know my prime directive since day 1 has been give Maul the best goddamn case you can while making as few logical blunders as possible, among others, and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't cycled out a few shit arguments in favour of better ones along the way. But what about others, or yourself?