I'm not in his camp, but trying to play Devil's Advocate for your benefit:
Are you sure that your arguments are more solid than his?
E.g., are you and he both relying on outside source of information, which neither of you have the time / resources / motivation to verify?
And if so, are you and he just assigning different levels of trust in a given source?
When I've been in situations slightly similar to yours, I was disheartened to realize that my own justifications weren't as solid as I originally thought.
That is, I was still pretty well convinced of my own position, but I realized that the main reason for it was a judgment call and intuition, rather than an unassailable argument.
Are you sure that your arguments are more solid than his?
E.g., are you and he both relying on outside source of information, which neither of you have the time / resources / motivation to verify?
And if so, are you and he just assigning different levels of trust in a given source?
When I've been in situations slightly similar to yours, I was disheartened to realize that my own justifications weren't as solid as I originally thought.
That is, I was still pretty well convinced of my own position, but I realized that the main reason for it was a judgment call and intuition, rather than an unassailable argument.