Yes, I believe it is usually better not to treat conversations as competitive games. (Not always. For instance, formal debates have some value, even if only for

Yes, I believe it is usually better not to treat conversations as competitive games. (Not always. For instance, formal debates have some value, even if only for entertainment.) I'm not sure what "in an absolute sense" really means, though, so I'm not sure whether I've answered your question; I think it's better in the sense that it's more likely for the conversations in question to improve the world overall. (E.g., by making one or both participants' beliefs or thinking more accurate.) When I say "I could be wrong" it isn't a rhetorical get-out-of-jail-free card, it's a simple statement of fact. You claimed I was "speaking untruthfully" and (by implication) asked whether I was aware of it; I said: so far as I know, what I said was true, but it could be wrong. I'm not sure what nefarious rhetorical goal you imagine I was achieving by saying that, but my intention was simply to summarize my actual epistemic state since you were evidently curious (or, I guess, pretending to be curious) about it. Anyway. When I said I didn't want to continue this conversation, I meant it. I don't think you're arguing in good faith; you continue to be (apparently deliberately) super-vague about your actual position; you make repeated assertions of bad faith on my part; you've made it clear that you see this as a zero-sum interaction where your goal is to "win"; in view of all that, I think there is negligible chance of anything actually useful coming of the discussion. I shall not be responding further.