Why is it that the person with the facts is considered to have lost this exchange? (details)

This question is inspired by this article:

It goes like this: Person A says “Black is white” — perhaps out of ignorance, although more often out of a deliberate effort to obfuscate. Person B says, “No, black isn’t white — here are the facts.”

And Person B is considered to have lost the exchange — you see, he came across as arrogant and condescending.

Why would it be better to be wrong than to be right (yet seen as condescending), especially in the context of the article, which is American politics? Why would we look more favorably on someone who either doesn’t know, or who aims to hoodwink, rather than the person with the correct information?

And furthermore, is there any way to insert facts into conversations that desperately need them, and not be seen as a condescending loser?