These sorts of mindsets are predicated on the assumption that two people "talking it out" or possibly appealing to google will arrive on "the right answer".
While in reality for many things there are judgement calls, trade-offs, unknowns and basically "it depends". In software, POCs, trial&error, R&D, etc help you test out the options.
Many would do better to frame a discussion as surfacing the risks, trade-offs, potential pitfalls, and benefits of different answers such that the "bad answer" is avoided, more than "the one right answer" is somehow discovered.
Yes, this is the real purpose of debate. It's an adversarial method of ensuring all important factors in a decision are brought up and heard by all involved, so they can go on to make the tradeoffs they think are right on their own. Nobody has to win or convince anyone of anything.
I think you need to be mindful if your "adversary" enjoys the "adversarial" method or, like many introverted software devs, is simply expediting the conversation to get away from you.
While in reality for many things there are judgement calls, trade-offs, unknowns and basically "it depends". In software, POCs, trial&error, R&D, etc help you test out the options.
Many would do better to frame a discussion as surfacing the risks, trade-offs, potential pitfalls, and benefits of different answers such that the "bad answer" is avoided, more than "the one right answer" is somehow discovered.