Yes. Largely, yes. And I suppose you could define "winning" as convincing more people to back you than the opponent did. Therefore moving the vote in your direction. But that's not the context most articles I've seen are looking at the value of the arguments, rather than the result on voters.

I also think that you should debate to persuade, but that's a goal, and usually an unrealistic one. Especially in modern debate. Besides, if your goal in a debate is solely to win, you shut off the potential to learn from the other side in a constructive way.

Can we all just agree that "winning" a debate is not a thing that happens in reasonable debates? I keep hearing about American debates and people saying "who won x debate" If a debate has a winner, the debate probably wasn't worth listening to.

Ya know, 2 minutes ago, I posted that I hadn't disagreed with anything starmer had done yet that I'd heard of. Immediately after I find something I disagree with so, fuck me ig.

Fair enough. It's a shame that he hasn't done more so far, but from what I've read (which is far from everything) I haven't disagreed with him yet.

Must be why he renamed it 😂

What specifically? Out of interest

I always hope that such people will, eventually, change. There's no guarantee, but it is the moral thing to try. At least in my opinion.

Can we stop calling it a winter fuel raid please? Or a winter fuel cut. It's the means testing of a government benefit. That is a perfectly reasonable policy. Almost every other government benefit is means tested, this one should be too.

Nw good luck have fun!!