When somebody is in competition to another, it is not so much whether he is actually better that counts.
It is whether the voices that most people listen to judge his performance as better.
The “critics’ consensus”. The consensus of the voices that most people think are reasonable and informed. Whatever that means, right?
When you trust a source that says “Trump totally owned Hillary, that bitch”, then that is the truth.
When you trust a source that says “Hillary is the rightful winner, Trump only tricked himself into winning”, then that is the truth.
But it’s much more apparent when there is no actual competition rules, like in a presidency.
In a debate.
Take a public debate. Most people afterwards will gravitate towards sources that proclaim that their preferred debater “won” or “totally burned” the other one.
In a debate there is no objective winner. What counts is not so much whether someone has actually won, but whether you can convince people that some particular part of the debate marked a participant’s victory.
And suddenly, after the critic says it, “it becomes obvious”. Well, why wasn’t it obvious before the critic or “expert” said it?
It’s the same way arguments end usually. One party eventually lets it go and says something like “Hey, don’t you realize it? I have already won. Stop arguing, it’s over.”
But it isn’t. That’s part of the power play. The belief that you can win an argument is the only reason why you can actually win it.
An argument is never really about the subject. It’s about who can convince the other person that they have won it. It’s a battle of frames.
Each one keeps presenting himself as “knowledgeable” or “skilled in rhetorics” or “rational” or whatever until the other one accepts that “he is outmanned and has lost”. Until the other one’s will is broken.
There is no rationality to it. It’s a battle until one is broken. The rationality is a pretense. Why? Because underneath, it’s about two people each wanting their own way. None is more valid objectively.
The so-called rationality and “validity” comes in through “accepted” standards. In other words, conditioned patterns that one has submitted to earlier. For example, one may appeal to “social responsibility”, a term that we are conditioned to submit to. So the other debater, to beat the first one, will now have to present the first one with an even STRONGER conditioned pattern, or use the same one against him in a stronger way. For example, one could make an argument that the first debater is even more unsocial. Now, whether that ends up being “believable” is again just a question of “standards” or in other words, conditioning. What we deem “reasonable” and “believable” is conditioning.
Now, what can you bring up against “social responsibility”? Again, it depends on the conditioning. To some, you may use “God”. To others, you may use “justice”. Or “the law”. Or “capitalism”. Or “love”. Or “rationality”. Whatever you can construct to suit your cause.
For example, with women you would more likely appeal to “social responsibility” and “victimhood” and stuff like that, whereas with men you would more likely appeal to “rationality” and “honor” or whatever. Both are just conditioned standards of course.
The point where you have won is the point where the other one bows to their conditioning. That is, shame, guilt, whatever. When one accepts that their position is “unreasonable”.
Realistically, the one who will win is the one who is less susceptible to conditioning. On the top of the food chain, the psychopath. He feels no shame nor guilt. You can accuse him of whatever you want, and he will feel nothing. He will smile and project (and feel!) confidence, thus convincing you (and others) that your argument is weak.
Don’t make a mistake. Arguments are emotional battles. Vicious battles. There is no honour in them. No mercy. No dignity. You either dominate or you submit, because you can’t take the emotional pain. The only way you can avoid this is when either neither submits (two psychopaths?) or you have an argument between two people who have already submitted to a standard of evaluation. In other words, to an authority. Then you can appeal to commonly accepted standards or the known “will of the authority” or solve the dispute by asking the authority.
That is how “peace” works. Peace works by subjugating everyone so dramatically that they will never risk a real conflict again. That is how law works. How government works.
Oh, but of course when it comes to famous debates, like presidential debates, both kinda have to be psychopaths. So neither really submits typically. So it becomes all a matter of interpretation. And that is where the secondary battle begins: The battle to convince a participant’s followers that the participant has lost. That is, the battle of critics, media, essays, etc.
That is why followers of two different participants will fight with each other over who has “really” won. It’s just a secondary battle of dominance and submission that follows exactly the same pattern as the first one. Only that it is slightly more pathetic and humiliating in the first place, in that you aren’t even really fighting your own battle. But it’s still the best that most of us can afford.
It is a vicious world we live in. Kill or die. Not physically. But emotionally. Most people are broken and will stay broken for others are emotionally stronger.
We are all slaves.
And the least broken slaves get the pussy.