Yes, the philosophical method actually makes sense. Instead of changing positions in argument only when your opponent has defeated elements of your own position, you should actively seek out to create better arguments for your opponent, utilizing a strong principle of charity, and in the process learn things that lead you to alter your own position.
This goes against almost all our inclinations when debating, but it does work. It transforms zero-sum arguments (where no one wins) into collaborative efforts to discover truth. It would certainly help modern political discussions, too.