Do you ever actually win arguing?

Do you ever actually win arguing?

Out of the countless thousands of arguments I've had in the Internet, I can name maybe a handful where I actually changed someone's mind. Arguing, especially about politics never works. Both sides just dig their feet in and the closest thing you ever get to "winning" is pissing your opponent off.

To argue, at least in terms of the Internet is to establish 2 sides and try to defeat them with better reasoning. The problem is that no matter how stupid their logic, someone who's opinion is being challenged will always double down on it, regardless of how convincing their opponent's argument is. If they start losing they don't change their mind, they just get mad,

Other urls found in this thread:

yo.utube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Fuck you OP

I am always changing peoples minds and having my mind changed since I dont care about being le right I just want to learn more

then again I was homeschooled while everyone else was brainwashed by public schooling

...

if they kill you, you win

maybe you just suck and are wrong

homeschooling should be mandatory, along with mandatory boyscout/girlscout like groups

public schooling is literally useless

emotional programming can't be unraveled with 'logic' since logic is one of the thing that triggers them into believing you are trying to harm them

and indeed, breaking them out of their comfort is very harmful

the way that you know you might have 'won' an argument is when there is no reply after yours, and I'm afraid that's the best you can hope for

No, never.

Why bother

You're not arguing to change your debaters mind.

You're arguing for the lurkers sake.

But I agree. I avoid certain threads that I have debated in time and time again, simply because I don't have the energy to do the same song and dance again.

Like do we seriously need another abortion thread?

you can plant seeds in a person's mind even if you don't immediately change it. you can change the minds of bystanders who are on the fence or unsure of their beliefs by arguing. it's a far cry from being useless no matter what you think.

It's the people who watch an internet argument who are most likely to be swayed in their opinion or beliefs -- They are just invisible observers with nothing invested in the outcome -- I argue for their sake.

I think a lot of it rely solely on your language, if you start by insulting people you'll never convince them

For me, I present arguments and hear others arguments. If they're valid arguments I self reflect on them after rebutting them the best I can. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Sometimes it takes me a while to reach a conclusion though. For example, I broke up with a grill partly because of her political beliefs and her lack of cohesion to reason and evidence, but then I realized later that all of that is sort of man stuff. I need to play my odds. There will probably never find a woman with a mans brain. It's sort of like chick gamer. She had all of the important classic female virtues though. Empathy, compassion, and she was really nice. She wanted kids and had nice family. She did have an abortion once though and would jump from relationship to relationship. Prolly not the best mom

I changed my mind on some subjects I had become a staunch proponent of, namely climate change and anti-vaccines...

When my daughter was born I was forced to actually consider both sides of an issue (eg vaccines) and decided that I was a retard for so many years believing vaccine conspiracies. It opened my eyes and now I know you're supposed to be open to changing opinions because that's what learning is.

Confirmation bias is the untold cancer of our age.

>arguing on the internet


I don't argue with people on the internet. In real life you can usually come to common ground and resolve things, but the internet is a terrible platform for debate for a number of reason. And anyone engaging in arguments on the internet should be shot on sight.

Lurkfag here. I habitually watch arguments online to see what people think, and the things I think each side gets right or doesn't notice they've got wrong. It's useful when trying to work out what's actually going on.

I've been trying to influence Sup Forums on a number of things, but fresh people from Sup Forums and reddit flood the board and now it's a waste of time all for nothing

fuck i cant wait for the shoah

No, no. Lord no. I've only ever won in debate classes and those were years and years ago.

Nowadays I find it easier to lay out my side of the argument then tell them that they should just agree to disagree and thats not the end of the world by any stretch of the imagination. Folk now are absolutely obsessed with being "right" and proving everyone else "wrong" that its just fucking tiresome anymore.

arguing is a stupid concept.

just kill those who disagree with you.

like that whore jo cox

>1 post by this id

ignore obvious b8. ignore obvious shills.

pity it made you autistic

arguing? i'm mostly just yelling facts at people here for my own amusement

NORWAY BARRED JEWS FROM ENTERING WHEN WE GOT OUR CONSTITUTION

JEWS HAVE BEEN KICKED OUT OF EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN NATION THEY HAVE INFESTED

JEWS MANIPULATE BROWN PEOPLE LIKE LITTLE CHILDREN

Before I found Sup Forums, I used to argue a lot more on sites that had a voting system for comments. This was back when the Internet was largely liberal, so it was an achievement to get a lot of votes arguing as a conservative. Once the Internet became more right leaning I gave up on that. There's no point grandstanding to people who agree with you.

Monty Python had a great sketch on arguments.

yo.utube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Arguments and debates are useful when there is enlightenment and enrichment of minds from the process. That in itself should be the real win, not for the fact that one side was superior, but that both put their efforts in and that a stronger conclusion from the efforts could take hold. When they fail to do this, however, it becomes nothing more than an organized shouting match. The very fact that most politicians' voting patterns can be identified solely by "D" or "R" is a problem, especially when life itself is far more complicated.

Everyone comes from different walks of life, and the evidence that they have in their minds is what led them to this moment. Unfortunately, some will be wholly convinced that their "evidence" is good enough and take for granted that everyone else should think the same way lest they be an idiot. They are on here to "win" for themselves, and while they may be able to convince some that their ideas are well-reasoned, they will have difficulty convincing others who simply know better or had the ideas that could defeat their own logic. That is when they have to decide whether to continue to preach (ignore the new Truth in front of them), or acknowledge the weakness and build new ideas from it. If they can acknowledge Truth, they will grow. If they ignore Truth, they will remain stagnant, and their ideas will hopefully become lost to time.

youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

fucken dubs of truth... thanks bro. keep dropping relevant nugs in all breads you come across