How do different political commentators approach making arguments, and why do they believe their methods are superior?

Political commentators like Destiny and Hasan employ fundamentally different approaches to constructing and presenting their arguments. While some prioritize fact-based substantiation and systematic reasoning, others may rely more heavily on ideological frameworks or emotional appeals to support their positions. Each commentator naturally believes their method is superior because it aligns with their personal values and produces results they find convincing. This creates an inherent bias where individuals favor their own argumentative systems simply because they've chosen to adopt them. The challenge lies in objectively evaluating these different approaches, as each person tends to judge effectiveness through the lens of their preferred methodology, making it difficult to reach consensus on which debate style is truly more effective.