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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 “right” and “good at winning debates” do not necessarily correlate.
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.
Same. So I guess that means we’re done here. See ya around. 😁
You can try it right now, actually.
Defer to superior logic and not to superior rhetoric.
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.
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.
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.
