Which of the following is NOT a potential benefit of making a concession in a debate?

Making a concession in a debate can indeed enhance the overall effectiveness of a debater's performance for multiple reasons. When a debater concedes a point, it typically builds credibility with the judge or audience, showing that the debater is reasonable and acknowledges valid arguments made by the opposition. This can establish a sense of trust and respect.

Additionally, conceding on certain points can prevent wastage of effort on unwinnable issues. Instead of becoming bogged down in defending a weak argument, the debater can redirect focus to stronger, more defensible points. This strategic move can help maintain a productive and engaging debate.

Furthermore, conceding certain points can help control the flow of the debate. By acknowledging weaker arguments early on, a debater can guide the discussion towards more critical issues where they hold a stronger position. This creates a more focused debate structure, allowing the debater to leverage their strengths effectively.

In contrast, strongly attacking all opposing arguments without making concessions can often lead to a defensive posture, potentially alienating the judge or audience, and detracting from the overall effectiveness of the argumentation.