Let's move on

terry writes:

If I have a debate I expect the outcome to be one of 3 possibilities.

1. I have been proved wrong and I acknowledge that and appreciate the
fact that I have learned something
2. I have proved the other person wrong, and they acknowledge that
and I gain some personal satisfaction that I have helped someone, and that
perhaps in 200 or so hours of piloting an aeroplane I might have actually
learned a thing or two.
3. The debate is about something that there is no right or wrong
answer and both parties agree to disagree.

Your error is in (2), because you not only want to prove someone wrong, but
you want your ego to be stroked with an unwarranted recognition of the
questionable value of your hours of experience. Without the ego boost, you
aren't satisfied.

I occasionally show that someone is wrong about something, but anything beyond
an acknowledgement of that is superfluous to me, and even the acknowledgement
is only useful for closure and not absolutely essential.