This describes the technically correct argument that's insufficient to persuade. Even in his essay, PG has this much to say: "Now we have a way of classifying

This describes the technically correct argument that's insufficient to persuade. Even in his essay, PG has this much to say: "Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? *One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner*[emphasis mine]. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct [n.b. or, for that matter, convincing]. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken." I would like to know why an objectively correct argument persuades fewer people than one would think it should and what could be done to remedy this weakness without compromising integrity.