Ask Lemmy

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Source: Tried to argue with an antivaccer...

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.

Being good at talking is not equal to being right. Falling victim to manipulation is not equal to being wrong.

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 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.” -- Jean-Luc Picard

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Defer to superior logic and not to superior rhetoric.

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 it means the other person isn’t listening /s

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.

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!

Tried to argue geology with an evangelical christian.

or evolution.

or abortion.

or trump.

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, 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.

"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

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.