When you debate with your mind both parties hear new ideas and and everybody gets SMARTER. Sometimes one party hears a better argument they hadn’t considered and they concede, but concede knowing their smarter, wiser and better for it. The person that gives the winning argument feels more confident in their understanding of the topic and is also empowered. Everybody wins.
When debating from the heart the people are PERSONALLY invested in it. If they concede their HEART was untrue and they are a broken person. The person arguing against them has an untrue heart in their eyes. Tempers often flare, feelings get hurt and the person who loses (or storms off) is heartbroken, and the “Winner”, having an empathic heart should feel a bit of guilt for hurting another person’s feelings.
I think he's spot on for that.
A good rule of thumb can be: Is the person you're arguing with capable of admitting that you might be right? Or is the issue at hand one that makes up a dear part of their cosmology, one where disagreement it is a sign of illness or deviancy?
For example, I just witnessed an abortion argument/rant and most everyone was arguing from emotion. Actually since this was about abortion it was textbook Lakoff.
It became a weird echo chamber as they didn't really have a pro-lifer to argue with (not for long anyway). But they demanded to know: How they could think that way? So I told 'em. I mean, the pro-life position isn't hard to grok. Very basic definition on personhood and thus murder.
Hell I didn’t even have a political dog in that fight, as I ain’t voting for Romney or Obama. And this from Penn Jillette is pretty close to my line of thinking on abortion. Which probably made things worse in their eyes. As I wasn't a "fanatic" and wasn't even arguing my own position.
Then they got angry and left. Because, well, they wanted an argument with "the enemy" not an explanation as to why the enemy thought the way they did. No, the enemy has to be a bunch of adulteress-stoning theocrats or baby-killin' monsters.
So, it came down to just me and some other guy having a rather nice chat about new developments in contraceptives. Like the male birth control pill and which barrier methods are better.
The whole thing was like a bunch of Austrian-School Economists getting mad because someone from the Stockholm-School is explaining the ideas behind the German Historical School to them. The Swed doesn't have a dog in the fight! He's just telling you why the Germans thought the way they did!