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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely not. No one wins an argument and it's the least likely form of communication to result in any part changing their mind. Even formal debate with rules and timers doesn't lead to changed minds often.
I personally strive to be factually and logically correct about anything I might discuss (that can be validated by facts or logic). Despite spending large portions of my time reading and researching so that I understand the world I live in better, I could count on one hand the number of times I've been able to change someone's mind.
The truth is it's very hard, bordering on impossible to change someone's mind who isn't open to it and most people are not. It's easier to make a snap judgement and never reconsider it or let someone else form one's opinion of something than to do the work to understand a topic enough to warrant having an opinion at all.
The extreme polarization of opinion and the politicization of basically everything makes it so that it's rapidly becoming functionally impossible to interact with people of different ideologies as they now encompass most of one's life.
It depends why you can't win. I'd say no just because the title is way to strong of a statement. But if you can't defend why you think the things you do then that should be a flag that you might want to reconsider your position and explore why you think that.
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.
Depends on the subject. If it's over something factual, then the answer for both parties is whatever the science says, to whatever confidence level it says it. The mind must be open to new data.
Subjective topics is where it gets more interesting. Assuming the other person wasn't just lobbing a bunch of sophistry my way, and holds their own in the argument, I usually can't avoid acknowledging a kernel of truth in their argument. That doesn't mean that I have changed my mind, necessarily, but my position has become slightly more nuanced.
In my life, the times I've been the most open to change hasn't been from argumentation, though. But rather when someone shares the experiences that shaped their opinions, in a low-stakes, ulterior-motive-free way. I believe this is called invitational rhetoric. If there is a strong enough parallel to my own experiences, it has caused a wild shift in my thinking at least once before.
Depends what you mean. If, as the commentators appear to be assuming, you mean you lost a yelling match with the worst person imaginable at lunch then no, not a great idea to change your mind. If, as someone who assumes you are a reasonable competent human would, you mean a specific point which has been thoroughly examined for some time, then yes, change your mind.
No, generally not. It's possible to lack the knowledge or the intellectual sophistication to disprove an argument that is, in fact, false. So if your life experience or your intuition has caused you to come to believe something, you shouldn't abandon that belief just because you can't disprove an argument against it, or you will become vulnerable to various scams and deceptions.
The more reliable approach is to accept the existence of an argument that you can't disprove as evidence that you might be wrong. Enough evidence should change your mind, even if one piece doesn't.
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.
You should stop viewing arguments as a win lose proposition. They are an opportunity for all participants to learn. All parties should be open to changing their mind. They should enter into the argument hoping to gain consensus and something closer to the truth.
that requires acknowledging the limits of your knowledge, which is not something most folks are apt to do.
if you don't know it, it must be stupid or wrong or bad! or a conspiracy...
so many fedi posters seem to think everything is a conspiracy... mostly because they just lack basic knowledge about the world and how it workings and are outraged that there is more to the world than round pegs and square holes.
In my mind, an argument isn't about proving myself right and the other wrong. I long ago changed my goals of arguing to learning something in the process. This works for me and it tends to encourage the right people and infuriate the people who deserve it. Though I still tend to be mean from time to time if I feel like the other person/people are being disingenuous. I still have work to do on myself.
No. Not all people will be convinced even when presented with overwhelming evidence. And not all arguments pertain to matters of fact, thus there is no objective right/wrong.
If you can't at least make the argument for the opposing side you shouldn't be trying to have the argument. So your stance should ideally be solid based on information from either side. You should be able to understand what and why the speaker holds the opinion they do regardless of if you agree. Having conviction in your beliefs should stay solid. Unless objective irrefutable evidence you are wrong is provided.
depends on the context of the argument. I couldnt win an argument with my dad about how French people are the superior race, but im defs not gonna argree with him
No. Sometimes I don't have / want to spend the time to research and debate with someone over a moronic and obviously incorrect opinion. They can pretend they "won", but that doesn't mean they're right.
Winning via the other person giving up simply strokes your ego, being objectively correct is an actual victory. Any moron can spew lies and declare themselves victor when no one tells them they're full of shit.
::: spoiler No, because you can have arguments over vibes based things, purely opinion. [Tap 2 expand]
E.g "i think well implemented communism and well implemented capitalism would be equally as effective at running society, but i prefer cyberpunk aesthetics so i'm voting money til i die."
Hmm.. bad example. That person just sounds stupid and a danger to themselves.
Chocolate cake versus cheesecake. I might feel strongky about my answer (cheesecake) but it's just opinion
:::
Okay i kind of dodged your question there. Even if someone batters me in a debate, I might assume that i just haven't landed upon the right argument to win that debate yet. Sometimes the opponent is so sure they're winning when they're really not... we should focus more on rhetoric in schools.
Not necessarily, there are plenty of people who argue in bad faith or refuse to accept logic in the first place. Failing to 'win' against someone like that doesn't indicate that my position is wrong since they weren't open to an actual debate in the first place.
If my opponent is debating in good faith and presents an argument that I cannot counter, then yes, I am generally willing to adjust my view.
my favorite is lemmy people who try to tell you you are using logical fallacies... that they themselves used in the first place.
it's legit to strawman you if you strawmaned first, but they don't ever see it that way. they see you as ILLOGICAL and their strawman as THE TRUTH. rinse and repeat for every fallacy.
i've never met someone on the internet demonstrated logical consistency, but a lot of people think they are logical geniuses because they read some crib notes on logic or took a 101 class on it in college for computer science or something.
it reminds me of people thinking they are experts in physics because they took it in high school, who don't know to understand that mechanics exists, who think quantum physics is 'deep and spiritual' but don't even know what a field equation is.
An argument? Not necessarily. This doesn't happen to me when discussing things that have nothing to do with my own feelings but I know sometimes people get agitated and cannot think and express themselves clearly. Now, if after thinking about it again and again, maybe even after having discussed it with someone I find wise and deep, I can't seem to find flaws in their argument and what they're saying just makes sense, then yeah. Else I would be unwise and irrational and that's for lesser men, right?
I don't agree that the concept of "winning an argument" should exist, at least in most cases. Arguments should be a cooperative thing, where you're working together to come to a point that you both agree on. Treating it as something that one person wins and the other loses removes all the learning that could happen.
That said, there are times when one person refuses to cooperate. At that point, I try to learn about their position as much as I can, and if there's a potential audience like in a comment section, I'll say my piece then leave.
Just because you can't win doesn't mean that they're right.
Hell, even if they ARE right, it doesn't mean that you're wrong! Arguments where both sides are talking past each other and misinterpreting what the other person says are definitely a thing. So it's entirely possible both can be right, or both can be wrong.
Or they could just be boneheaded. Or you could just be boneheaded. Or both.
No. Just because I'm uneducated about something or not intelligent enough to convince someone else about something, it doesn't mean I'm necessarily factually wrong or morally wrong about something.
The view I agree with is: If I can't win an argument I should consider changing my mind.
IF one can't win the argument because the opposing-position is true, correct, framed-rightly, presented-accurately, etc,
THEN one must ( according to integrity! ) change one's mind.
ELSEIF one can't win because the opponent WON'T frame things rightly, because they WON'T accept-as-valid-anything-outside-their-axioms, the WON'T allow correct-reasoning to be valid, the WON'T tolerate anything outside of their ideology/prejudice/"religion"/formal-system,
THEN one ought ditch the "discussion" & find somebody with intellectual-integrity to discuss things with, instead.
Go see some stuff on Peter Thiel, or the ones who hold that the world is being overtaken by evil because women have rights..
Go see some of the ones who hold that Trump is pristine, & all others are evil..
Go see some of the fascist stuff..
Go see some of the Communist-Imperialism stuff..
Go see some of the zionist/christofascist/islamist/fundamentalist-atheist/hindutva/"buddhist"-genocider-of-Tamils/etc stuff..
& see that you can't win an argument against any of these axiom-based ideologues, & that's a feature, not a bug:
they're enforcing that their-continuums/souls get locked into what they want, & that will enforce that their-continuum/soul WILL "reap" the consequences of what they want, until their souls grow up.
That's how enforced-evolution-for-all-souls/continuums works:
ALL energies contained-in-EndlessStreamOfUniverses gets recycled!!
Including my-continuum/soul, including your-continuum/soul, ALL continuums included.
Endlessly.
Purification's enforced & guaranteed, & natural-ignorance AND intentional-ignorance are allowed, because that's Free Will, & it's required, for continuums/souls to have their own way, their own path, their own lessons, their own realizations.
No escape, ever, until a given continuum has earned ALL of its-own meanings, & ALL of its-own purifications, & ALL of its-own Truths..
So, if someone, anyone, holds-to retarded-"meaning", why should that convince more-awake-one to hold to more-retarded-"meaning"??
Hold to what's framed-universally, livingly-True, upright, correct, open, BEing-integrity, etc, .. & let the world enforce its ignorance & its intentional-ignorance,
& if that means that one only gets prejudice & contempt, well that's just good honest aversion-therapy, to help one break one's attachment-to-getting-caught-in-human-existence, isn't it?
No, it doesn't work like that. Nobody can change someone else's mind by arguments. Learning new things or changing your mind is something that only happens internally. It is only you who can change your own mind or learn things.
Good argumentation can encourage someone to question their own arguments, which can encourage them to investigate the topic, which can teach them something that can make them change their mind or adapt their existing views in a way that works with the new knowledge.
Because of this, you shouldn't waste your time arguing against someone's arguments. That will only escalate the potential conflict and move the goal post further away from whatever the initial topic was.
To put all of this to good use, you should rather question the other person or yourself until either of you reach the inevitable answer: "I don't know".
From there you can start figuring out what you need to learn and eventually make up your mind.
No.
Source: Tried to argue with an 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:
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.
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".
“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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
A lot of arguments are not winnable by either side and it doesn't imply they should both change their minds. Sometimes there is no "right" view.
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.
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.
Absolutely not. No one wins an argument and it's the least likely form of communication to result in any part changing their mind. Even formal debate with rules and timers doesn't lead to changed minds often.
I personally strive to be factually and logically correct about anything I might discuss (that can be validated by facts or logic). Despite spending large portions of my time reading and researching so that I understand the world I live in better, I could count on one hand the number of times I've been able to change someone's mind.
The truth is it's very hard, bordering on impossible to change someone's mind who isn't open to it and most people are not. It's easier to make a snap judgement and never reconsider it or let someone else form one's opinion of something than to do the work to understand a topic enough to warrant having an opinion at all.
The extreme polarization of opinion and the politicization of basically everything makes it so that it's rapidly becoming functionally impossible to interact with people of different ideologies as they now encompass most of one's life.
If I can’t win an argument it means the other person isn’t listening /s
It depends why you can't win. I'd say no just because the title is way to strong of a statement. But if you can't defend why you think the things you do then that should be a flag that you might want to reconsider your position and explore why you think that.
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.
Depends on the subject. If it's over something factual, then the answer for both parties is whatever the science says, to whatever confidence level it says it. The mind must be open to new data.
Subjective topics is where it gets more interesting. Assuming the other person wasn't just lobbing a bunch of sophistry my way, and holds their own in the argument, I usually can't avoid acknowledging a kernel of truth in their argument. That doesn't mean that I have changed my mind, necessarily, but my position has become slightly more nuanced.
In my life, the times I've been the most open to change hasn't been from argumentation, though. But rather when someone shares the experiences that shaped their opinions, in a low-stakes, ulterior-motive-free way. I believe this is called invitational rhetoric. If there is a strong enough parallel to my own experiences, it has caused a wild shift in my thinking at least once before.
Depends what you mean. If, as the commentators appear to be assuming, you mean you lost a yelling match with the worst person imaginable at lunch then no, not a great idea to change your mind. If, as someone who assumes you are a reasonable competent human would, you mean a specific point which has been thoroughly examined for some time, then yes, change your mind.
No, generally not. It's possible to lack the knowledge or the intellectual sophistication to disprove an argument that is, in fact, false. So if your life experience or your intuition has caused you to come to believe something, you shouldn't abandon that belief just because you can't disprove an argument against it, or you will become vulnerable to various scams and deceptions.
The more reliable approach is to accept the existence of an argument that you can't disprove as evidence that you might be wrong. Enough evidence should change your mind, even if one piece doesn't.
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.
You should stop viewing arguments as a win lose proposition. They are an opportunity for all participants to learn. All parties should be open to changing their mind. They should enter into the argument hoping to gain consensus and something closer to the truth.
that requires acknowledging the limits of your knowledge, which is not something most folks are apt to do.
if you don't know it, it must be stupid or wrong or bad! or a conspiracy...
so many fedi posters seem to think everything is a conspiracy... mostly because they just lack basic knowledge about the world and how it workings and are outraged that there is more to the world than round pegs and square holes.
In my mind, an argument isn't about proving myself right and the other wrong. I long ago changed my goals of arguing to learning something in the process. This works for me and it tends to encourage the right people and infuriate the people who deserve it. Though I still tend to be mean from time to time if I feel like the other person/people are being disingenuous. I still have work to do on myself.
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
No. Not all people will be convinced even when presented with overwhelming evidence. And not all arguments pertain to matters of fact, thus there is no objective right/wrong.
Feelings don't care about facts.
That is a more succinct way to put it
If you can't at least make the argument for the opposing side you shouldn't be trying to have the argument. So your stance should ideally be solid based on information from either side. You should be able to understand what and why the speaker holds the opinion they do regardless of if you agree. Having conviction in your beliefs should stay solid. Unless objective irrefutable evidence you are wrong is provided.
depends on the context of the argument. I couldnt win an argument with my dad about how French people are the superior race, but im defs not gonna argree with him
what. i haven't heard anyone argue the french people are a superior race. unless it's some anti-immigrant thing?
Oh he's a massive racist
nah it would have to be many arguments for me to notice a pattern and even then it would just be worth investigating deeper
No. Sometimes I don't have / want to spend the time to research and debate with someone over a moronic and obviously incorrect opinion. They can pretend they "won", but that doesn't mean they're right.
Winning via the other person giving up simply strokes your ego, being objectively correct is an actual victory. Any moron can spew lies and declare themselves victor when no one tells them they're full of shit.
::: spoiler No, because you can have arguments over vibes based things, purely opinion. [Tap 2 expand]
E.g "i think well implemented communism and well implemented capitalism would be equally as effective at running society, but i prefer cyberpunk aesthetics so i'm voting money til i die."
Hmm.. bad example. That person just sounds stupid and a danger to themselves.
Chocolate cake versus cheesecake. I might feel strongky about my answer (cheesecake) but it's just opinion :::
Okay i kind of dodged your question there. Even if someone batters me in a debate, I might assume that i just haven't landed upon the right argument to win that debate yet. Sometimes the opponent is so sure they're winning when they're really not... we should focus more on rhetoric in schools.
what if someone tries to debate you that your vibes are wrong, or off, or whatever.
It sould simply be a matter of opinion, so i would not accept their argument
Not necessarily, there are plenty of people who argue in bad faith or refuse to accept logic in the first place. Failing to 'win' against someone like that doesn't indicate that my position is wrong since they weren't open to an actual debate in the first place.
If my opponent is debating in good faith and presents an argument that I cannot counter, then yes, I am generally willing to adjust my view.
my favorite is lemmy people who try to tell you you are using logical fallacies... that they themselves used in the first place.
it's legit to strawman you if you strawmaned first, but they don't ever see it that way. they see you as ILLOGICAL and their strawman as THE TRUTH. rinse and repeat for every fallacy.
i've never met someone on the internet demonstrated logical consistency, but a lot of people think they are logical geniuses because they read some crib notes on logic or took a 101 class on it in college for computer science or something.
it reminds me of people thinking they are experts in physics because they took it in high school, who don't know to understand that mechanics exists, who think quantum physics is 'deep and spiritual' but don't even know what a field equation is.
An argument? Not necessarily. This doesn't happen to me when discussing things that have nothing to do with my own feelings but I know sometimes people get agitated and cannot think and express themselves clearly. Now, if after thinking about it again and again, maybe even after having discussed it with someone I find wise and deep, I can't seem to find flaws in their argument and what they're saying just makes sense, then yeah. Else I would be unwise and irrational and that's for lesser men, right?
I don't agree that the concept of "winning an argument" should exist, at least in most cases. Arguments should be a cooperative thing, where you're working together to come to a point that you both agree on. Treating it as something that one person wins and the other loses removes all the learning that could happen.
That said, there are times when one person refuses to cooperate. At that point, I try to learn about their position as much as I can, and if there's a potential audience like in a comment section, I'll say my piece then leave.
Just because you can't win doesn't mean that they're right.
Hell, even if they ARE right, it doesn't mean that you're wrong! Arguments where both sides are talking past each other and misinterpreting what the other person says are definitely a thing. So it's entirely possible both can be right, or both can be wrong.
Or they could just be boneheaded. Or you could just be boneheaded. Or both.
-- Frost
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
So no is my answer. But we could argue about it.
DEPENDS WHO you arguing, if its illogical like conspiracies, or political you cant win against doubling downers.
It's a logical fallacy called ad hominem if you discredit what someone says based on who said it rather than what is being said.
No. Just because I'm uneducated about something or not intelligent enough to convince someone else about something, it doesn't mean I'm necessarily factually wrong or morally wrong about something.
The view I agree with is: If I can't win an argument I should consider changing my mind.
IF one can't win the argument because the opposing-position is true, correct, framed-rightly, presented-accurately, etc,
THEN one must ( according to integrity! ) change one's mind.
ELSEIF one can't win because the opponent WON'T frame things rightly, because they WON'T accept-as-valid-anything-outside-their-axioms, the WON'T allow correct-reasoning to be valid, the WON'T tolerate anything outside of their ideology/prejudice/"religion"/formal-system,
THEN one ought ditch the "discussion" & find somebody with intellectual-integrity to discuss things with, instead.
Go see some stuff on Peter Thiel, or the ones who hold that the world is being overtaken by evil because women have rights..
Go see some of the ones who hold that Trump is pristine, & all others are evil..
Go see some of the fascist stuff..
Go see some of the Communist-Imperialism stuff..
Go see some of the zionist/christofascist/islamist/fundamentalist-atheist/hindutva/"buddhist"-genocider-of-Tamils/etc stuff..
& see that you can't win an argument against any of these axiom-based ideologues, & that's a feature, not a bug:
they're enforcing that their-continuums/souls get locked into what they want, & that will enforce that their-continuum/soul WILL "reap" the consequences of what they want, until their souls grow up.
That's how enforced-evolution-for-all-souls/continuums works:
ALL energies contained-in-EndlessStreamOfUniverses gets recycled!!
Including my-continuum/soul, including your-continuum/soul, ALL continuums included.
Endlessly.
Purification's enforced & guaranteed, & natural-ignorance AND intentional-ignorance are allowed, because that's Free Will, & it's required, for continuums/souls to have their own way, their own path, their own lessons, their own realizations.
No escape, ever, until a given continuum has earned ALL of its-own meanings, & ALL of its-own purifications, & ALL of its-own Truths..
So, if someone, anyone, holds-to retarded-"meaning", why should that convince more-awake-one to hold to more-retarded-"meaning"??
Hold to what's framed-universally, livingly-True, upright, correct, open, BEing-integrity, etc, .. & let the world enforce its ignorance & its intentional-ignorance,
& if that means that one only gets prejudice & contempt, well that's just good honest aversion-therapy, to help one break one's attachment-to-getting-caught-in-human-existence, isn't it?
( it is. )
( :
_ /\ _
No, it doesn't work like that. Nobody can change someone else's mind by arguments. Learning new things or changing your mind is something that only happens internally. It is only you who can change your own mind or learn things.
Good argumentation can encourage someone to question their own arguments, which can encourage them to investigate the topic, which can teach them something that can make them change their mind or adapt their existing views in a way that works with the new knowledge.
Because of this, you shouldn't waste your time arguing against someone's arguments. That will only escalate the potential conflict and move the goal post further away from whatever the initial topic was. To put all of this to good use, you should rather question the other person or yourself until either of you reach the inevitable answer: "I don't know". From there you can start figuring out what you need to learn and eventually make up your mind.