Oh god, I didnt even know that Americans spelled it like that
Why must you be so lazy, its 1 freaking letter. 

Us Aussies are like the laziest, most laid back people around and even we put the effort in to type the extra letter

If one side of the argument hinges on a factually incorrect statement, then yes it can be won.

If you think 1 + 1 = 3, then I win the moment I can prove 1 + 1 = 2. No matter how much you argue, I'm correct and therefore have won

I had a colleague I worked with for a few years, and we talked a lot, argued about many things, politic, economy, history, litterature. This guy was not the average guy, 50 years old, with a lot of experience, including being born and spent his childhood in a communist country, a very broad culture, someone that make any discussion fun and deep at the same time.

And this guy said once " I had many discussions, and I believe a few times I could have been right and convincing, but never ever anyone said to me 'yeah, you are right !'. I have never clearly convinced anyone in my whole life."

So, I believe an argument can probably not be won in this sense. If you look at politicians arguing, which are some kind of professional of argument, they don't even try to convince each other, there is no chance. They perhaps try to convince a few people watching TV. But more than anything, they convince people already having this opinion that they are really sharing this opinion, they convince people that it is fine to have this opinion, and they convince that they will act accordingly to this opinion.

Funny thing is that it also mean that Trump is not "one person".

Only if the person that you are arguing with, have education.

Of course, it can but it's situational. A 1 vs 1 is generally the most difficult because the only way to win this sort of debate or argument is to change the other person's mind, admit they were wrong or they submit to your will. Some people respond a great deal to logic while others respond more to emotion.

The other type of debate or argument is involves group or bystanders. It's far easier to win in this type. It's not much different than two lawyers trying to convince a jury that their argument is sound and to agree with one side over the other. This is also the more common type.

Of course you can win. But the judge cannot be your opponent, that's where your situation failed. Had you presented evidence to an audience while your opponent simply made bald assertions, the audience would have been persuaded to your side undoubtedly. 

It's rare that an opponent will admit defeat.

That's a waste of a letter and a waste of time. It's not a matter of lazy. It's a matter of efficiency. One the years, the time saved by spelling "judgment" without the "e" really adds up!

Some times. Most people inherently suffer from cognitive dissonance though, making them defend a point so much, they don't realize how big of a hypocrite they are.

I don't like him but someone said something wrong so I was simply proving they were wrong.

Trump says what I think. If people call him a racist for the things he says. That would make me a ......! Donald Trump is not a racist!!!!