Does anyone win a debate with a verbal abuser?

Let it be resolved: Nobody can win a debate against a verbal abuser.

_________________

Preamble to the argument:

1. People who are skilled in verbally abusive tactics never admit they are wrong. They don’t listen. The way they win is by dominating the conversation and forcing the other person into a defensive crouch.

2. People who are skilled in verbally abusive tactics are derailing the actual debate by changing the topic to another topic, namely, how bad someone's character is. This is a red herring .. non sequitur, irrelevant to the actual topic.

3. ( C ) Therefore, people who demonstrate that they are experts at verbally abusive tactics in a debate don't really DEBATE about the actual topic when they use an insult, their only care, is to use a tactic that can make them seem to "win". Rhetorical tactics WORK for the hopelessly biased, or an uniformed audience.. however, they aren't a part of an honest conversation, let alone a structured argument that should FOLLOW from clear and defined premises. We can't lead a horse to water.. if they aren't INTERESTED in an honest conversation or debate, we should not expect that their attempts at derailment surprising. I would not expect to WIN unless I were to use the same fallacious, irrelevant, obnoxious verbally abusive tactics. I don't like to stoop so low and I really would like an honest debate from time to time. Some of these experts in verbally abusive tactics can reason well, but they insist on rendering their otherwise reasonable arguments into pure and utter childish, petulant, reactive crap.

What a pity.