If we were to apply this to horse-racing then my point is that all horses, no matter what, are considered equal and start from the same starting-point.
Really? So you're deciding to get in to horse betting and where to place your bet, you roll a dice and choose your horse based on that? Or do you base it on the deliverable results of the past from their form and proven abilities? The reality of discussions on here is we're not discussing a bunch of horses that have never been in a race.
Yes, the six year old (to switch examples) is entitled to their opinion, they may even have some good ideas; how do we determine if what they are describing is a good idea or whether it doesn't hold water? Presumably by testing/reviewing/examining that idea to see whether it carries merit?
We all have buckets, they're different sizes, some maybe are chipped or cracked; if I argue that mine, despite having a hole in the bottom of it, can hold more water than yours I expect that you would want to see something to back this up? Without actual witnesses/evidence/explanation would you believe me? When you suggested that perhaps I am mistaken, I say that you would only know if you were the one pouring the water but you can't come because I don't need your approval or understanding.
Would you wonder what my purpose of coming to discuss buckets was in the first place?
When someone presents and idea that appears to some like nonsense or exaggeration and when called on it actually demonstrates it in person to hundreds of people, many of whom were doubting or outright hostile, do you not agree that it lends weight to their argued position?
Imagine I know no French (this is not too much of a stretch unfortunately...) but also I have no knowledge of it as a language at all, perhaps no knowledge that there are
other languages; it may sound like nonsense to me. I may argue from the perspective that it is not language but rather noise. Others, with different levels of understanding may point out to me that I simply am not equipped to understand the communication and that I need to learn some in order to be involved in an enlightened way.
Imagine someone refusing to teach me French yet still expecting me to believe it was a real language?
Contrast with someone offering to teach me and this then shedding some light on what was just noise/nonsense before I was given some degree of understanding?
This is analagous to the situation, I think, because it's not as simple as a debate with word-skill determining who is an authority; the subject matter is closely linked to a physical activity/skill the knowledge of which informs the debate such that one is able to understand the topic at hand.
Whilst we're at it, I can disregard your mentioning of plato and socrates and wittgenstein since we start from an equal footing and they're not here; you can't use their arguments or achievements to back up yours.