Does it change anything if there is a chain of arguments increasing in length?
A: Spends 10 minutes explaining why we should do X.
B: Spends 20 minutes explaining why A is wrong and we should do Y instead.
A: Spends 40 minutes explaining why the objection is wrong and we should actually do X.
B: Spends 80 minutes...
I could imagine this to be possible e.g. if the arguments take form of “in most cases, the argument of my opponent is correct, but there is a specific situation where the argument doesn’t apply because...”, that is, opponents describing in turn increasingly complex scenarios, explaining why they are the exception from the more general rule. And at each step, the explanation sounds convincing… and it also includes the reason why the previous explanations that reached the opposite conclusion sounded convincing but was wrong regardless...
Does it change anything if there is a chain of arguments increasing in length?
A: Spends 10 minutes explaining why we should do X.
B: Spends 20 minutes explaining why A is wrong and we should do Y instead.
A: Spends 40 minutes explaining why the objection is wrong and we should actually do X.
B: Spends 80 minutes...
I could imagine this to be possible e.g. if the arguments take form of “in most cases, the argument of my opponent is correct, but there is a specific situation where the argument doesn’t apply because...”, that is, opponents describing in turn increasingly complex scenarios, explaining why they are the exception from the more general rule. And at each step, the explanation sounds convincing… and it also includes the reason why the previous explanations that reached the opposite conclusion sounded convincing but was wrong regardless...