If a boxer remains undefeated, that means he's better than everyone else. Is he a good boxer? How do we judge a good boxer, other than compared to his peers?

"Therefore, one's ability to continually win is a function of their prowess. " - While I kind of agree with this, it's important who the person defeats. That's where the Straw Man fallacy comes in. Straw Man provides no challenge to the ideas.

A challenge to an idea makes us look at it differently. The challenging idea can be something completely stupid, but even if it makes us tweak the better idea and improve on it, it contributes something. That's why I also think we need to seriously consider crazy ideas and address them rationally. We shouldn't just wave them away, 'they're all kooks' and be done with it. I once debated a person regarding the "Revealing clothes get girl raped".

Thanks for the comments.