>And yes, that's how truth is uncovered and progress is made: in an adversarial manner between two or more conflicting interests. "Losers" have an interest to become inquisitive, whereas "winners" have no interest other than their moral principles(?!). You should thank the "losers" in history for the progress made because of their inquisitive nature. Those ridiculing their statements may have a lot to lose in the long run.
>
>Does that mean that we should be thanking the Confederacy? After all, they lost the civil war. How about the segregationists? They lost the civil right battle. Should we be thanking them? How about the Nazis? Should we also be thanking them?

Usually, when someone brings Hitler or the Nazis into the conversation, I consider it just an attempt to make a big stink; it signals the end of the debate. I don't think that's what you meant.
Obviously, the losers you mentioned are those who became "losers in the long run", and to whom I was referring to in my last sentence.
My point is this: Abusing, ridiculing, demeaning and, in general, attempting to silence one's opponents is a sign of democratic decline. From the late Roman republic to Weimar Germany, these attitudes have been the prelude to thuggery.
*