Ask Lemmy

No.

Source: Tried to argue with an antivaccer...

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

Defer to superior logic and not to superior rhetoric.

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.

No!

Tried to argue geology with an evangelical christian.

or evolution.

or abortion.

or trump.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.