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
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.
“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
If I can’t win an argument it means the other person isn’t listening /s
Defer to superior logic and not to superior rhetoric.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some people don’t respond to reason or facts.
Yeah like all ML ;)
🙄
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.” – Jean-Luc Picard
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.
