In person or online. Most entertaining thing to argue about? What gets you the most heated?
Hypothetically, yes. Practically, no. Arguing is fun and engaging when you have a sparring partner who is sharp, engaged, and persuadable. If changing someone’s mind isn’t on the table, or if all you’re capable of doing is poorly repeating memes and headlines you’ve seen, I’m not interested.
Exactly. Presenting arguments in good faith with people who are willing to accept objective views and valid factual information can be thrilling and present opportunity to learn about your own belief systems.
In practice, though, it is such a rare occurrence that you are mostly just better off banging your head against a wall.
Not really. I can enjoy a debate, IF the other person is doing so in good faith. Challenging, enlightening discussions are always welcome!
Generally speaking, if one of us can’t “agree to disagree” and happily change the subject, then it won’t be a good time.
I disagree to agree to your point. /S
Who’s arguing? I came in here for a disagreement!
No you didn’t!
He absolutely did!
Context for the uninitiated:
No it isn’t!
No he didn’t!
He did!
What is wrong with you, why would you come onto the internet specifically looking for a disagreement? That’s so idiotic you’re worse than james madison and gorson ramsay COMBINED. I hope your favorite pants turn green
Arguing is not contradicting everything I say.
Yes it is.
Stop that.
I enjoy discussing and confronting ideas. I see no interest in arguing.
I used to, when I used to believe people could change their minds in response to a good argument. Now that I realise no one ever changes their mind because of an argument, I no longer enjoy it. Now I mostly see it as a self reinforcing public display of affiliation
I’d say it is very unlikely someone will change their mind because of an argument. But it is likely that someone will change their mind after several arguments, and some reflection. It may take years. This person may not see things the same way you do once they change, but they may change some of their views.
People do change their mind over time, but not from repeated exposure to arguments. That tends to have the opposite effect, and causes people to consolidate and solidify their position.
What gets them to change the opinion is varied, but it’s rarely “lots of arguments”
I’m not saying someone changes solely because of lots of arguments. Or repeated exposure, which I agree, are more likely to cement a position if they are essentially the same argument over and over. But arguments in general add to whatever experiences eventually change someone’s mind. Just another factor.
Fair, but I would put it under the umbrella of “social pushback”. When someone gets enough signalling from the people around them, either at large, or just in their communities and sub communities, they can shift from their opinions. But I don’t think arguing holds a special power there. Just telling someone their opinion is harmful and you don’t want to hear it has the same effect in the long term
No.
What do you mean? Yes you do.
I think you might be right.
That’s not what you said last time!
Yes?
No
Yes?
No
Have you considered yes?
Arguments are fun when they’re just civilized disagreements about inconsequential things. Like, architectural decisions at work are always interesting cause you may learn a thing or two and it doesn’t matter if you don’t convince others, it’s not your product. Actual heated arguments, I tend to stay away from.
I really don’t. No-one argues to convince anyone, just to state their own opinions louder.
You have developed a very sad view of the world.
You know what? You’re right.
I totally disagree! /s
You know what? You’re right.
I used to. I’m an old school troll. I enjoy messing with people and teasing. If I can make things difficult or awkward for someone, then get both of us to laugh about it, I’m in heaven. But over the last couple of decades people take themselves more seriously or something and its harder to get people to be silly or appreciate the absurd. People don’t enjoy it any more so I stopped doing it. I don’t want to get people actually mad, or have them be truly upset. But yeah, I’d argue just about anything to get someone going. I’d get more and more outrageous till they finally twigged what I was doing. Then I’d do the same thing to the next person but take a different stance. Usually the first person would join in and it would just snowball.
I love messing with people/trolling but I tend to keep it to the shitpost and shower thought communities.
As in debate? I used to but I have less patience for it now. Its possible because I did so much of it I tire of rehashing things with folks who have not as thoroughly gone through the many things. I still am a little obsessed with the idea of truth though.
I enjoy it when I find out I was wrong. That moment of “oh shit!?” is awesome.
I also really enjoy arguing pedantically over fictional worlds.
Same
When I can argue with someone rational who is willing to change their mind or has a reason for disagreeing with my or the foundations of my argument such that they can explain where I’ve made a mistake, I like arguing.
It’s even fun when you argue with rational people about irrational things for the fun of just pushing the limits of understanding. Like trying to debate ontological nihilism purely for the pain of trying to understand it.
However, I do not like arguing with people who are irrational, because there’s no point, and I know it, but I really feel like maybe if I just said something right they’d start believing in evidence.
It is also just very difficult to explain certain things to people who don’t understand the foundations of your reasoning.
There’s a saying that to a mathematician there are only two kinds of problems: impossible and trivial. When you’ve thought a lot about something, many foundational concepts seem trivial to you but not to outsiders. It’s very difficult to branch this gap in knowledge.
For example I had an argument about how the undecidability of the busy beaver numbers seem to disprove solipsism because something had to do the work to find them but it wasn’t me, so something other than me must exist for those few numbers we’ve calculated so far to be at my fingertips.
This argument means nothing to people who don’t know what undecidability means, and it is incredibly difficult (for me at least) to try and defend that proving something is “undecidable” in the first place is even possible to someone who’s never seen/done a formal math proof.
