No.
Source: Tried to argue with an antivaccer…
If you are right, why didn’t you win?
Because you can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into. You’re not arguing with facts, you’re arguing with people, and if you argue with stupid people, they’ll drag you down to their level and best you with experience.
Some people don’t respond to reason or facts.
I believe the common analogy is it’s like playing chess with a pigeon:
You know you’re smarter and do everything right, but they knock all the pieces over, shit on the board, then strut around like they won.
What does winning look like?
Recognizing you’re wasting valuable oxygen and limited emotional bandwidth on someone who doesn’t want to be reached.
Sadly, this seems to make up the vast majority of people.
I mean… I’m not much or a people person for that reason. They are fucking exhausting.
Same. So I guess that means we’re done here. See ya around. 😁
Because “right” and “good at winning debates” do not necessarily correlate.
Cause being right doesn’t mean you know how to argue with that person. It also doesn’t mean you remember all the relevant facts that would make winning possible.
You can try it right now, actually.
If I can’t win an argument because the other guy has good points I need to reconsider my opinion.
If I can’t win because me not gud talk, maybe not.
Important distinction for this thread:
- A dialectical argument is one where both sides compare views to see if they can together arrive at a higher truth by realizing their mistakes. Good for changing your mind. Requires good faith on both sides.
- A debate is a rhetorical battle, often more for the sake of presenting views to an audience than for the sake of the debaters. Do not change your mind because you’ve been rhetorically outmanoeuvred. This is the common type of argument for politicians and public discourse.
No.
Just because you can’t win, doesn’t make you wrong.
I used to debate flat earthers. I never won the argument but no way will I change my perspective on something so basic as the shape of Earth.
An argument is not a fight that must be won. It is a conversion with an exchange of ideas and opinions. The world is a tiny little bit more complex than “wrong/right”, and so are the conversations and differing viewpoints.
That’s kind of stupid stance to have.
I mean I can get into a argument of ideas with a MAGA idiot about how you shouldn’t support the current Epstien File POTUS and present all kinds of evidence about how the current president is an idiot, that he has ballooned the deficit more than any modern president for no rhyme or reason, that his immigration policy and tariff policy are complete and utter failures that extremely hurt the American economy and families and the MAGA idiot would steadfastly refuse to acknowledge facts, crap all over the table and declare victory.
I certainly didn’t win the argument and I certainly shouldn’t be supporting the “I can identify a Squirrel” in Chief because I couldn’t convince a cult member they’re a moronic cult member.
You’ve just got to crap on the table first
No, it means I must do further research into the points I hadn’t thought about. Usually I haven’t thought about them because I don’t weigh those factors highly.
I kinda agree & kinda don’t. I think the problem is OP should have said “you must be significantly more open to changing your opinion.” You still need to validate everything you can before doing so.
No!
Tried to argue geology with an evangelical christian.
or evolution.
or abortion.
or trump.
Defer to superior logic and not to superior rhetoric.
I don’t really think of debate as win lose. If the argument is good it should effect you and help you come to conclusions. Most things are not either or and its unlikely one goes from one extreme to the opposite extreme. If anything it might nudge into a different perspective. Sometimes though something big you never thought of comes ot light and completely changes how you look at things.
Changing your mind isn’t something you do - it’s something that’s done to you. If you hear a compelling enough argument, you will change your mind whether you want to or not. If that doesn’t happen, the argument wasn’t good enough.
Obviously there are ways to resist changing your mind once that uncomfortable feeling starts creeping in, and that’s called cognitive dissonance. When new information conflicts with your prior beliefs, you either try to discredit it - for example by attacking the suspected motives of the person making the argument, as many like to do - or you try to retroactively fit it into your existing belief structure instead of updating your views.
I change my mind all the time. It’s not fun, but I have no choice. When someone makes a good point I can’t refute, updating my beliefs is the only rational thing to do.
This is actually one of the most puzzling things about online arguments I run into here pretty much daily. More often than not, the people I’m arguing against don’t even seem to try to change my view. They’re just putting on a show to let everyone else know I’m making the wrong noises and need to be ridiculed for it. Shutting down the discussion like that just seems incredibly unproductive to me.
No.
As others have said already, some people argue without reason, and so you can never win an argument against them; it has no bearing on whether or not you’re right, so it should have no effect on your opinion.
There’s also situations where you’re arguing from a perspective you aren’t fully confident in. If you can’t win, it’s not that you should change your mind, it’s that you should investigate the topic more deeply. It could be that that leads you to changing your mind; it could be that it reinforces your views; but not being able to win the argument, in that case, is only a sign that you should go learn more about the subject, I’d say.
I can’t win arguments because I’m bad at arguments.
By that logic, I would probably end up changing my beliefs every week or so or end up believing something absurd because someone who believes it is good at sophistry.
But then again, this is also why I try not to argue much. It’s a waste of time and just makes everything worse.
I will, however, hear people out if I think they might have some good points.
No.
Only assholes think arguments must result in people changing their minds to the ‘winner’s’ side.
real argumentation is not about winning, it’s about learning.
Not exactly. I can be convinced, am wrong often enough. But also often people just cannot hear or see anything from anyone else’s perspective, or they cannot be convinced because they are too brainwashed or just don’t have the same life experience I do.
So sometimes I would describe it as your idea may be correct but you don’t have the communication skill to explain it to the person you are arguing with.
Also - I have been told I’m persuasive. So maybe I could win and still be wrong, yes?
Arguing well is separate from having good ideas.
