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.

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.

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.

If I can’t win an argument it means the other person isn’t listening /s

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.

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.

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.

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.

depends on the context of the argument. I couldnt win an argument with my dad about how French people are the superior race, but im defs not gonna argree with him

nah it would have to be many arguments for me to notice a pattern and even then it would just be worth investigating deeper

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.

Okay i kind of dodged your question there. Even if someone batters me in a debate, I might assume that i just haven’t landed upon the right argument to win that debate yet. Sometimes the opponent is so sure they’re winning when they’re really not… we should focus more on rhetoric in schools.

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?