Individuals were more objectivist after arguing to win than they were after arguing to learn. In other words, the social context of the discussion—how people frame the purpose of controversial discourse—actually changed their opinions on the deeply philosophical question about whether there is an objective truth at all.

…Indeed, agreeing to partake in a cooperative dialogue might be an instance of what journalists call “false balance”—legitimizing an extreme outlier position that should not be weighed equally. Some would say that the best approach in this kind of case is to argue to win.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-toxic-political-conversations-changing-how-we-feel-about-objective-truth/

hmmm