Ask Lemmy

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.

If you can't at least make the argument for the opposing side you shouldn't be trying to have the argument. So your stance should ideally be solid based on information from either side. You should be able to understand what and why the speaker holds the opinion they do regardless of if you agree. Having conviction in your beliefs should stay solid. Unless objective irrefutable evidence you are wrong is provided.

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.

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.

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?

No. Sometimes I don't have / want to spend the time to research and debate with someone over a moronic and obviously incorrect opinion. They can pretend they "won", but that doesn't mean they're right.

Winning via the other person giving up simply strokes your ego, being objectively correct is an actual victory. Any moron can spew lies and declare themselves victor when no one tells them they're full of shit.

Not necessarily, there are plenty of people who argue in bad faith or refuse to accept logic in the first place. Failing to 'win' against someone like that doesn't indicate that my position is wrong since they weren't open to an actual debate in the first place.

If my opponent is debating in good faith and presents an argument that I cannot counter, then yes, I am generally willing to adjust my view.

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

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.

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