If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases.

If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases. But I think you are too harsh on the idea of winning as inherently bad. If you are a saint and your opponent is a nazi, you fundamentally disagree on what the truth is. The way you advance truth is by winning (i.e. persuading an audience, or perhaps even your opponent, that your views are correct). I agree that in general it's best to avoid zero-sum framing. But some ideas are simply incompatible with other ideas, and in those cases the pursuit of truth is inextricably tied to winning a contest.