Held in the argument regarding Midrashic and Pasha conservatism

Hello Rabbi,
Following on from last week's lesson on conservatism, a question arose about an Eskimo who received from his ancestors that he should wear long clothes. Over time, the descendants of the Eskimo migrated to a warmer region, and a debate arose about whether one should continue to wear long clothes or whether one should wear clothes that are appropriate for the weather. In the event that neither side in the debate presents a Midrashic argument that would justify its claim, then you said in the lesson that the side that claims to keep wearing long clothes will win by force of persuasion. But if the argument presents an argument that the reason for the long clothes is modesty and on the other hand the reason for changing to short clothes is to suit the weather, then you said that in such a case neither side has the advantage of persuasion. I wanted to ask about this, how is it different from the first form of argument in which no one has a justifying argument. After all, in both forms of argument there is a kind of draw in justifying arguments (0-0 or 1-1). Then what should decide the tie is persuasion. Isn't that so?