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. 😁
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.
Because “right” and “good at winning debates” do not necessarily correlate.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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”.
deleted by creator
“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
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.
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. Consider that arguing is a skill that people do not all possess to an equal degree, and what implications that has.
Suppose there’s an ongoing debate about some issue with two sides, side A and side B. Now suppose that, while the people involved might not all know or believe or understand why, side A is objectively correct in this instance, side B believes something that simply does not match with how the universe works, but matches observations close enough for this to not necessarily be clear to humans, hence the argument.
What happens if someone who is not especially skilled at arguing takes side A, and someone who is rather good at it takes side B? There’s a pretty good chance that side B “wins”, on account of being better at winning arguments, but if the person on side A changes their mind, they would actually be more wrong than before.
The point of this isn’t to say one should never change ones mind of course, just to point put that arguments are actually a rather flawed way to determine truth, and therefore that losing one isnt enough proof on it’s own to require one change one’s mind if one doesn’t find the points raised genuinely convincing.
It can be better than nothing, especially if the participants are both skilled and to an equal degree, and actually aim to find the most defensible position rather than treating the thing as a competition with a winner, but that is not what most arguments are, and if I was to bet, I’d guess that the percentage of internet arguments especially, made by the majority of people not actively trained in this (or who are trained in it but as a competitive sport, like in debate completions), that can be described that way is very close to zero.
Tl;dr: Being right and winning an argument are two separate things.
No!
Tried to argue geology with an evangelical christian.
or evolution.
or abortion.
or trump.
Defer to superior logic and not to superior rhetoric.
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.
