No.

Source: Tried to argue with an antivaccer…

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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, 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.

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 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.

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?