The revisionism going on which has "reversed" the research of previous scholars is based upon the worldview of the reviser and not the evidence.
Ok, Willowtree that is the LAST time you use that as an attempt at rebuttal of an argument unless you show, in detail, how the worldview has produced an erroneous interpretation.
In fact, since it is only the evidence and the logic behind the interpretation that counts you probably don't need to go into the worldview. You are, of course, welcome to show that the evidence used by the 'revisor' is false or incorrectly examined and interpreted.
that is a valid argument and doesn't require recourse to guessing what cause the incorrect examination or interpretation.
If, in debate, the one is simply allowed to say "you are wrong because you view my ideas as incorrect" then there isn't any real debate is there?
You will defend your points and disagrrements with actual arguments.
You might, for example, show how one's worldview makes the distance from the GP to the seacoast different from about 112 miles. When you have handled something so simple then you can move on to other issues.