An Epiphany of Sorts ( An Awakening ! )

i have for a long time, had this idea that 'Logic was Bunk' and That Humanimals aren't really capable of True Thinking; But i've also held on to this other idea that it might, or would be possible to convince A Reasonably Smart person that something that they believed was True or False; 
To be False or True— 

Using a Method of Rhetorical Banter called :
The Heretic and The Expert.
The Heretic would offer No Facts, merely ask Questions, and the Expert would provide all the Facts and Structures for An Argument, so that at the End; The Expert would be faced with an Irrefutable Argument which contradicted their own Assumptions.

Well.
i've been awoken.

Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 12:12:51 AM

Yesterday; Wednesday; i got a call from M. Gilbert about an SSI Overpayment.

She was supposed to be an impartial arbitrator assigned by SSI to resolve a dispute that i was having concerning an Overpayment that SSI had allegedly sent to me. My position was that it was not an Overpayment, or more precisely; SSI was confused ( ? ) ! pertaining to how many months of Overpayment that they'd sent me. ( i thought 1, they thought 2 ) 

Anyways; That's all very confusing and difficult to explain,

But it was very clear that M. Gilbert was not a Neutral, unbiased arbitrator. 

Prior to this Kerfuffle; i had naively thought that if you can present a given argument or position to someone in The form of The Heretic vs The Expert; The Heretic can get The Expert to agree to some position that The Expert previously believed was entirely Wrong. 

That is; Change their mind with an irrefutable argument that they themselves ( The Expert ) had created, with The Heretic’s guidance. 

But now— i believe that this is pure nonsense; 

Because it tacitly requires The Expert to want to find The Truth, & to Cooperate with The Heretic; which in reality; They will Not do. 

The Trick that M. Gilbert most favored in employing against my position was techno-babble concerning how ’The Computers’ processed The Information, or creating this very incomprehensible dichotomy of The Machines vs The Institution. 

That is; Every Position or bit of knowledge that i attributed to The Institution ( SSI knew (x ), 

She would counter with The assertion that that knowledge (x was only known by The Computers that were processing it. The Institution didn’t know or act on any of this information. The Clerks at SSI didn’t or couldn’t process The information, it was all reserved knowledge that only The computers were privy to. ( ? ) 

What was most clear though; Was that she was never going to concede to any premise or truth that she had actually already admitted to, if it began to look as if it was going towards some position that was astray from her objective of denying my assertion that SSI was being very unfair to me.

Is there any real defense against Stonewalling and Obfuscation ?