[Fai Mao]

“I love a good boxing match, but punching isn’t the way to win a debate.”

WW2 would disagree with you.

You cannot reason with the irrational. They are operating on a flawed internal logic in which they can never be wrong. That is why we cannot rely solely upon a conscience but must have an external source for morality and ethics. The only answer when confronted with such people is force.

A point will be reached, and is very near, when we will be beyond any form of discussion.

[RoosterRedux]

You argued with my point viz. "punching isn't the way to win a debate"--which is true BTW--by saying that WWII proves it (my point) wrong.

But then you concluded with: "A point will be reached, and is very near, when we will be beyond any form of discussion."

If we haven't reach the point which is beyond discussion, we are still in a debate...and debates cannot be won by punching.

I agree with you that after all negotiations fail, war (i.e., punching) is the next step.

[RoosterRedux]

As a follow-on, we may be in a debate with people who are irrational, but they are not the judges of the debate.

It's the undecided people of America (the independents) who are judging the debate, not those with whom we are debating.

The great majority of the people in the U.S. are still only superficially aware of the issues in this debate.