A metaphor on the efficacy of debate
We build world views like we build houses: brick by brick (or opinion by opinion), over the course of time. We use pieces that match and fit well together. If we are a good builder, our house is comfortable and strong.
A debate is like trying to convince someone their house is built poorly. The more fundamental the debate, the closer you get to the foundation of the house. The big debates are all about foundations. No one wants to tear down their entire strong, comfortable house because the first course of bricks is drawing criticism. It is a phenomenal amount of work, requires destruction of something you love, and leaves you without shelter in the interim.
Hence, people rationalize the work they have put in, saying yes, there might be flaws, but it is otherwise strong and serviceable. In fact, it is a well-constructed as any house out there. Better, in fact, because it suits them. Other people’s houses are strange and uncomfortable, so where is the impetus for change?
Sometimes I have felt my “home” to be serviceable, other times merely a lento in a raging hurricane.
Myself, I have found it is easier to re-examine my “foundations” and supporting structures when the challenge to it is a gentle one rather than an outright assault. When that occurs and the strength of the argument is wanting, I feel I must either concede utterly and bear my throat or defend it as vigorously as was the Alamo. O.O
Personally, I always thought of debate like the practice of martial arts where different ideas are the strength of technique and the debate approach like the style being practiced; some use a more aggressive tact, perhaps even to excess (“Strike first! Strike hard! Show no mercy, sir!”) whereas others adopt a more defensive fashion, not unlike Akihito, where the combatant deflects approaching blows, only making headway when the opponent is caught flatfooted or becomes defeated by his own charge.
Your analogy works for me better though, because it speaks more to the quality of what is being defended, rather than merely how.