[horseLOGIC]

It is a questioning of the merit of debate versus just plain virtue signaling. The last sentence summarizes it pretty well:

"The idea of “debate” imposes an adversarial framework on online interactions, as well as privileging logic as a tool of discovery."

>> It appears the author is saying that since people don't change their mind as often as the author would like, then it means that reason doesn't matter.

It's more that if you want to effect positive change (like "ending slavery"), reason doesn't get you far. To the contrary, a very reasonable argument could be made to non-slaves on why freeing the slaves would be a mortal risk to them. Changing "morals" on the other hand, is effective, because morals transcend reason. This is the playbook of the left.

[sanxiyn]

Agreed. The author says debate privileges logic as a tool of discovery, as if it is a bad thing! What does the author propose to privilege as a tool of discovery instead? "moral honor"? Really, LOL.