Whenever I see a comment on social media that I think is wrong, I feel the need to correct it. These arguments can go on for days, even weeks, and if I don’t win the argument, I get overly fixated on it, wondering where I went wrong and so on.
Whenever I see a comment on social media that I think is wrong, I feel the need to correct it. These arguments can go on for days, even weeks, and if I don’t win the argument, I get overly fixated on it, wondering where I went wrong and so on.
You should stop treating arguments like a game. The point isn’t to win - it’s to find the truth. Every argument should start from the acknowledgement that you might be wrong, and if so, you wish to not be wrong for a minute longer than necessary. I can’t think of a single thing that better demonstrates intellectual honesty than someone actually changing their view when faced with a convincing argument.
However, not all arguments are worth continuing. When your opponent doesn’t even engage with what you’re saying, or when you’re not even open to the possibility that they might have a point, there’s no reason to keep going - there’s no end to it. So many online “arguments” are just people performing for an audience with no real regard for whether their points are landing or not. They’re after applause, not a change of mind.
What if this argument is actually weak, and only appears strong because you have no counter-argument? Should you still change your mind? Does the fact that it is persuasive mean it is true?
Well, no - it doesn’t always mean they’re right. However, why would you hold on to your old view if someone makes an argument against it that you can’t counter? At the very least it should give you some pause and make you look more deeply into the reasons why you’re clinging to that view in the first place. Even if it doesn’t directly disprove your point, it should still show that maybe you don’t actually have the level of understanding on the subject that warrants the confidence you have in that particular view and perhaps you just want this to be the truth.
It’s okay to have an opinion on something or lean toward A being more likely true than B, while still acknowledging that it’s just your current view - not necessarily the absolute truth.
I mean, imagine not being able to respond to someone who defends the flat world. Even though I don’t know enough about this, I trust scientists, even if I can’t provide enough arguments that the earth is geoid at that moment, is this a good reason to question my view? We have a lot of beliefs in life that we don’t defend very well. If we want to justify all of them, I guess we won’t have time to live.
In a situation like this, you’d need to consider whether them being right on this particular point would actually shift your position.
A flat-earther might claim the moon landing never happened, show you a picture, and explain how it was actually taken in a studio. Okay - maybe you can’t prove them wrong. Maybe they even made a valid observation about that picture. What happens if you grant them this one point and acknowledge that yeah, they’re making a good point and maybe this particular picture is fake? Then what? Does that prove the moon landing never happened? No. Does it prove the earth is flat? No. At most it proves that one specific picture was fake. You still have a mountain of evidence supporting your belief that the earth is a sphere, not a disc, so it doesn’t shift your original view. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Just because someone proves to you that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams doesn’t mean you have to grant them that 9/11 was an inside job. It’s not a logical contradiction to hold these two views at the same time.