This old F. Scott Fitzgerald quote, I have slightly modified to make a very important point about so-called intelligence .. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind, as valid, at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

You see, to be able to call yourself "intelligent", you must be able to "see" the validity in the perspective of those you oppose - unless you are dealing with an insane, bloodthirsty mass-murderer who only thinks and speaks about killing, there is a good chance the person you are facing has some reason(s) for believing what they do - some of them may even be described as "good", or even "valid". This fact must be recognized 'first', before a respectful and productive "argument" can take place, one in which both sides have the possibility of learning something from the other 'and' perhaps one will eventually be able to WIN! or both will agree, or agree to disagree .. whatever the result may be, the necessary ingredient is respect for the fundamental rights and experience of the other, and also respect for truth, evidence, logic .. ..

There are too many examples of great thinkers, writers, artists, who for whatever reason decided they should throw themselves into very public combat, regarding some highly divisive policy, event, or in support of or in opposition to something or someone, only to lose their perceived value and walk away with little or no remaining respect, from anyone. You see, those who allow their minds to be co-opted to a particular cause, a particular political or economic philosophy, or any such thing, and who will do whatever it takes once they are in the fight, to support that perspective, will ultimately rob themselves of the fullness of their own intellectual capacity.

What Does it Mean to WIN a Battle of Ideas!?

This is not the same as temporarily defeating the often encountered incoherent troll, who is not interested in truth and has very little of value to share with the world. The only way to win an argument is to conduct it respectfully and with INTEGRITY.

You only win if you convince the other that their thinking is flawed and thus challenge them to make modifications in their belief system. "Or", you come to learn that what you have believed is in-fact invalid or untrue, and you make that change and grow as a person - this is by definition a win-win, as your opponent has succeeded in educating and you have succeeded in becoming a more capable person as a result.

These feelings of accomplishment, and/or gratitude, are only possible if the participants understand the necessity of integrity, or rather the necessity of honesty - in recognizing the weakness of their own defenses, or how poorly established their attacks / accusations might be ... in properly evaluating what is being said to them and how they respond. It is not about civility as much as it is about being able to recognize what is true, or probably true, and what is false or most-likely false, and to respect and integrate this progress into the ongoing conversation.