No.
Source: Tried to argue with an antivaccer…
antivaccer
There are people who deny the existence of vacuums now? Smh my head
Yeah, they don’t like anything that sucks more than they do.
So, I assume you’re a guy (or at least have those “parts”) since you’re smacking two heads…
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.
Yeah like all ML ;)
🙄
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.
Being good at talking is not equal to being right. Falling victim to manipulation is not equal to being wrong.
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.
No. If I believed that, I’d turn into a racist chud because I have never been able to “win” an argument with racist chuds as I tend to argue with logic and facts.
They always argue in bad faith so it is literally impossible to win. Except by making some point that annoys them a lot and then just immediately walking away (or more likely blocking them), leaving them seething because they can’t have the last word
I replied on X and blocked it, but he took a screenshot of my post and replied by saying “he blocked it out of fear”.
I’ll claim it was evidence he was seething and had to say the last word so someone would hear it lol. They can claim they’ve won to others and lie to themselves as much as they want, but at that moment when you walk away and they can’t reply, you both know who took control of the situation
Edit// It can also be even funnier if you don’t block them, just say goodbye in the final message, and then never reply whatever they write. Then you get to see their final attempt to say the last word, but they have to wonder did you not care enough to even block them, and can’t be sure did you ever read it. This apparently takes some weird form of self control though, so blocking might be better for most people (and it depends on the platform can it work)
Edit2// Oh, and it’s also hilarious if you’re extra polite in the last message, especially if you manage to not sound sarcastic. Then posting about it makes them also look worse, especially if they rage back
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.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.” – Jean-Luc Picard
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
Sorta.
If I genuinely cant win an argument because logic and science don’t agree with my position, I should change my position.
If somebody simply insists something is true and refuses to engage with reality, I cant “win” an argument against them, but I also shouldn’t change my position.
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.
Defer to superior logic and not to superior rhetoric.
No!
Tried to argue geology with an evangelical christian.
or evolution.
or abortion.
or trump.
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.
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.
“If I can’t win an argument, I must change my mind.”
No, that is not logical.
Take me for example: I am always right, therefore I never need to change my mind.
But OTOH I do not win arguments, because I simply do not argue - no need to, because I am right anyway.
And so it happens that some people, who don’t know sh*t, seem to win arguments despite being wrong and absolutely needing to change their minds.
/s
