Re[figuring] Dialectical Flatness: Figuring the ground_left

The mechanism formulating the dialectic rests upon contradiction and refutation in order to infer conclusions:
from Greek, ‘dialektike’, the art of conversation, discussion … referred to debating tournaments … the primary aim … to refute an opponent’s arguments or lead the opponent to contradictions, dilemmas, or paradoxes… (Angeles, 1992:71) 
Also,
the method of classification whereby there is a repeated division of a concept into its respective subclasses. 

The above statements identify the dialectic as a game played by minds. There is no draw in the rule of this tournament . The debate continues until the other mind is defeated. The method  of the dialectic is to break things down…continuously. It is valid to say that there is nothing wrong with the idea of debate, in order to come to a greater understanding of unknown parts. I am not writing to refute the dialectic per se. However, like most things in life, when some(one) or some(thing) veers too far to the left, or too far to the right, strain causes the one / thing to fracture. The problem does not necessarily result in the one / thing breaking down, but once the one / thing has broken down, what becomes the foundation of the reconstruction? Who rebuilds it? If the side on the left refutes the part on the right and the left rebuilds the mechanism using only his / her single-sided-mind, then what will the reacted traction be of the ignored other single-sided-mind on the right? We know the outcome …the tournament  continues… We think, that if sides change, the game changes. It does not. The only difference is that the left side scores the runs as long as they are batting, but when caught out, the same game continues…only now the right side is batting…