From my perspective, having lived in both the United States and the UK/Ireland, I've observed a distinct difference in argumentation styles. Many (not all) educated Americans seem to approach debate as a contest to be won, prioritizing rhetoric over a genuine search for truth. This contrasts with a tendency in Canadian, Irish, and British parliamentary discourse, where excessive goalpost moving or outright avoidance of nuance is frowned upon. "Making a show of yourself" is not a good look. In those cultures, conceding a point or acknowledging complexity is often seen as a sign of intellectual maturity rather than weakness. Possible factors contributing to this difference include the U.S.'s deeply adversarial bipartisan system, its courtroom-driven approach to conflict resolution (especially in divorce and civil litigation), and its educational emphasis on debate as a competitive skill rather than a collaborative one. Additionally, the influence of cable news and talk radio has normalized a style of discourse where scoring points matters more than understanding an issue. That said, online discourse is increasingly homogenizing these styles, even in cultures that traditionally value nuanced debate. Social media algorithms reward outrage and oversimplification, making it harder to engage in good-faith discussions anywhere. While the U.S. has historically led the way in this "win-at-all-costs" approach to argument, it's clear that the rest of the world is catching up.
Computer says: "That’s an attempt at a last-word win rather than an actual rebuttal. He’s still repeating the claim of a straw man argument, despite the fact that his position was engaged directly, and now he’s pivoting to suggest that agreement on certain points means he wasn’t really challenged. It’s a way of dismissing the exchange without having to engage with the core issues raised." I would say myself that it effortlessly highlighted your bad-faith argument and rhetorical manoeuvres.