On the big questions, 'nature' abhors a vacuum. We 'have' to have an 'answer' for every big question because they are too important to just leave them hanging.
On most of these questions we will have come to a conclusion-- even if it's unconsciously.
For example, on free will versus determinism, I hold onto the position that I am not a robot. Anyone who 'debates' me will get both barrels. It's on the jihad level. I DO know! It's just that my debating skills suck. But instead of saying the best debater wins, many bemoan that this is the way it usually is (i.e. that the most intelligent usually wins any debate)
So just accept that he's smarter than you (which doesn't neccesarily make him right), and that life is not fair, and that you KNOW you are right but he has the higher IQ so he -- technically -- wins the debate.
The alternative-- that I launch a jihad on his *** -- can't be the way to go-- because I believe in a God who commands me (through Revelation) not to 'cancel' him because he is in the image of God and he won fair and square by using the God-given talents that God gave him.
The fact that he can win in a debate with me that there is no God, hence no Revelation, hence no image of God, etc. should lead me to amusement, not bemoan-ment. This is the way God set up nature. IQ matters in formal debates.
Just listen to a debate with someone [much] smarter than you that holds your position. That may also help take the win at all costs jihad-edge off.