Winners (kind of) don't exist.

I want to know exactly when "winning" became the ultimate goal.  There are few things that really need a defined "winner," and those things, in the grand scheme, are not things we should be very focused on (i.e. sports).  Likewise, there are no "losers."

Although this applies to so much, this will focus on rhetoric.

Debates almost always center on winning.  Though, I agree there are people that argue or debate more effectively, I think it is wrong to think of somebody as a winner.  There are two types of arguments, which we will call "traditional" and "consensual"

Traditional arguments are the arguments that focus around a winner.  Lawyers are a good example of traditional arguers.  They are there to proves someone is guilty or innocent.  Lawyers are trying to prove themselves as right, or "winners."  The courtroom may be the only significant winners/losers in the world.

Consensual arguments are almost the opposite.  The goal is to gain common ground and get the listener to think "that is interesting."  Consensual arguments don't focus on winning, instead a group of people will hopefully take each other's arguments to strengthen and come up with the best solution, collectively.  This calls for people to open-minded, one of the bigger problems with Western-thinking people.

Fighting and arguing are two completely different things, I would almost say they are opposites.

Consensual arguments are what we need in today's society.  Particularly, in politics.  Let's take health-care for instance.  The most overblown and talked about topic right now.  We've got the extremists, who believe that everyone should have health care no matter what (including how much money it takes, how much government involvement, etc.), then we have the people who believe it is not a right, just a privilege, and health care companies should charge what they want (no matter how many people can't afford it and how corrupt the system is).  Neither side of this problem or solution can be deemed a winner.  We need to come together and identify the problems, figure out what is plausible, and fix it as best as we can with the resources.

So, health care.  We've got 40 million (this is a rough estimate) people who are uninsured.  That needs fixing.  We've got corrupt health-care companies.  In my opinion, these people are right up there next to oil companies as "worst people in the world."  Health care companies are depriving people of a fundamental thing, life!  That definitely needs fixing.  Government control is necessary in health care.  Now, here comes the give-and-take principle.  Complete government control is not necessary.  There needs to be a middle ground here that makes health care affordable, without taking TOO MUCH (note: I'm not saying "no") money from taxes, and not making it more difficult to get health care if paying through a non-governmental company.

This wasn't supposed to focus directly on health care, more on the idea of consensual arguments being used more often.  So, I will leave you with this: 

Disagreement is good for finding the best solution; however, ignorant fighting will further the problem.  This fine line is what plagues political arguments, both between beings, and between media organizations.