Will arguing help or detriment your cause? (For: Argue, Against: Don't)

I will argue my opponents standpoint that arguing will only help an individuals case. I would also like to challenge my opponents definition of argument and debate as well as define other terms. My opponent by what I can infer by the way his argument is presented he believes debate and argument to differ by the fact an argument is informal and a debate is formal. While this is true it does not mean they are essentially the same thing. please read to my elaboration below. 1. Debate- to talk or argue about something: to talk about something at length and in detail, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion 2. Argument- Argument, controversy, dispute imply the expression of opinions for and against some idea. 3. Arguer- A person who takes part in a dispute. We can see in the definitions alone provided by Merriam Webster Dictionary that a debate and argument while different in which the formality that they happen are indeed the same thing. They are both an exchange of ideas for or against a cause. Even as further proof arguments are given within a debate. When you clicked on the button to read our statements, did that button say arguments or debates? The debate in the topic is "will arguing help or detriment your cause? " while my opponent lists an example in which it appears one debater is selfish for brining up his case this does not answer the question. This example only displays a scenario in which the debater is seen in a bad light but not his case. Although a debater may appear to be selfish the debate at hand and weather or not its detrimental to his cause is the main point my opponent should bring up. I have here listed an example of an argument according to my opponent after all this is proven not to be taken as a debate again defined by my opponents definition. In renaissance times the supposed "fact" that the earth did not moved was challenged by an astronomer named Galileo. The church at this time based its evidence of biblical scripture that the earth is firmly established it cannot move. (1 chronicles 16:30) However, Galileo was able through explaining heliocentrism proved this was not the case. Galileo in turn was convicted of heresy, here we can see where my opponents example comes into play, in a form, however his argument was fact and cannot be disproven. You may be asking why does this matter, doesn't this just prove arguments help your case? Well it matters because the churches position was proven to be false and Galileo's teachings became widespread and replaced those of the church. As we can see the argument was detrimental to the churches case. According to my opponent in his remarks this is not possible for the churches argument to be hurt. Allow me to elaborate further. My opponent argues that because someone brings a topic up for an argument the end result will be one of the two following scenarios. 1. The arguer does not influence the other 2. The arguer influences the other toward his/her belief. These examples only come to one conclusion that the arguer cannot lose his case or, that his case will only be neutral ground. However as seen very evidently in many debates and my example there is a possibility of one opponent losing his argument and his case be detrimentally hurt or even erased from the realm of possibility. My opponent does not recognize this as a possible outcome in his argument and therefore in order to be correct that an argument can only be beneficial he must be able to refute any situation I can provide in which an argument has been detrimental to one parties cause. I look forward to my opponents counter arguments.