Arguing: What are its Pros and Cons?

[Raphael]

In recent years, in various more or less left of center parts of the political spectrum, the idea seems to have taken root that arguing is generally a bad thing. People say that arguing never changes anyone's mind, that it's a waste of time and effort, and that you can't argue people out of positions they didn't argue themselves into.

Strong stuff. Now, personally, I have to admit a very basic bias about this topic: I simply like to argue. Whenever I see an opinion with which I disagree, my brain starts to come up with arguments against the opinion before I've even made a conscious choice that I want to do that.

So, I don't really like the arguments against arguing. But I don't like wishful thinking, either, and for someone who likes to argue as much as I do, the idea that arguing is good might simply be a form of wishful thinking.

Then again, the anti-arguing position might effectively lead to a habit of only talking to people who already agree with you, and that doesn't sound politically smart to me.

So what do you think?

[xxx]

to argue is above all
a way of forming a personal opinion,
whether for or against,
by confronting ideas...

not to argue is to freeze frontiers
without questioning their validity
or the value of those who support
or confront them...

not so much to convince others,
but to convince ourselves...

[Torco]

only talking to, and listening to, people who already agree with you is indeed a problem within the left, that much is for sure. i share your enjoyment of arguing stuff, but to be honest as of late i've been loosing a lot of that enjoyment. maybe it's me becoming older and thus having seen more stuff, but then again maybe it's epochal: my sense is that more and more arguments, both on and offline, are just people performing the script of the media arguments they consume. like, i feel as if there are fewer original arguments around. when people argue, i almost feel as if i could code responses: this is a liberal argument type 9, this is a fascist argument type 19. even down to the wording of the argument.

I think arguing is good regardless of whether it changes people's minds right away, but mostly cause it exposes you to new ideas you can digest at your own pace in your own time. i'm sure i've changed my mind based on arguments that have been given to me much later than they were given. that's why this feeling of "why are so many arguments these days just rehashings of TV-and-influencer talking points?" so irksome.

[Ketsuban]

I too like arguing, and experience the same urge to try and defend what I already believe to be true when I encounter contrary opinions. I think the trend towards avoiding argument is a result of the social media tendency to emulate a single dinner party where everyone in the world is invited—what would have been an enjoyable pastime in a small friend group or similar becomes a slanging match between people who have built their self-identity on being pro-skub or anti-skub.

There seems to have been a similar backlash against public school debate clubs for their perceived desire to relitigate subjects like racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia about which there can be no further discussion; the existing body of work identifying logical fallacies gets disparaged because people use identifying the fallacies in an opposing argument as a substitute for forming their own (generally resulting in someone linking this comic from The Upturned Microscope).

[MacAnDàil]

I agree with Torco that arguments are less original and I would relate this the current dearth of disruptive science: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5.

I am not sure whether I enjoy arguments but they are certainly things that I tend towards and think about often.

[WeepingElf]

Relevant.

[zompist]

Arguments *can* change minds, but it may take years… and you never know if you’re the one someone refers to decades later saying “I guess that guy was right…”

But the biggest value in arguing isn’t changing minds, it’s in refining your own thoughts. You learn more about what you really believe and hopefully get a more nuanced view.

[Raphael]

Thank you for your comments, everyone!

Relevant.

Thank you for the reminder. I mostly agree - the "argument by adjective" section might have unconsciously influenced the idea behind the title of my self-published book - but I disagree with some of the minor points:

On misunderstandings, I think they do happen, and I don't think it's wrong to point them out. Based on experience, I'd say that anything anyone writes, no matter how carefully phrased, can and will be misunderstood if enough people read it. So writing in such a way that you won't be misunderstood is simply impossible, and I don't think it makes sense to ask people to do the impossible.

A more subtle form: trying to hold people accountable for your deductions from your description of their position.

I don't think it's wrong to hold people accountable for the implications of their ideas, even if they themselves haven't thought them through.

I'm undecided about the "Topic Police" section. Some of my favorite online discussions jumped from topic to topic while still staying interesting and insightful. Then again, I've been in places online where there were strict "stay on topic"-rules, and I can see the point of the people who make and enforce such rules. So I think I'll just try to follow the local rules in each place on that.

[linguistcat]

If you're arguing for fun, hopefully both sides see it that way. But also in that case you're not really trying to change anyone's views. If it happens, then that's secondary. It's more a matter of sharing different points of view so that you can understand them better, even if you don't agree.

On the other hand, arguing to change opinions isn't as much about constructing a good argument as it is about using various tactics to make an argument that SOUNDS good. And since you're unlikely to change your argument partner's views, it's actually more important to make an argument that sounds good to outside observers.

Two people arguing to change (outside observers') opinions is annoying but probably the worst type of argument is between people whose reasons for arguing are at odds.

[Raphael]

but probably the worst type of argument is between people whose reasons for arguing are at odds.

Hm, never thought of that. Great point!

[alice]

Also relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc

[zompist]

On misunderstandings, I think they do happen, and I don't think it's wrong to point them out. Based on experience, I'd say that anything anyone writes, no matter how carefully phrased, can and will be misunderstood if enough people read it. So writing in such a way that you won't be misunderstood is simply impossible, and I don't think it makes sense to ask people to do the impossible.

.

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding. What I advocated was not attempting to avoid all misunderstanding, but avoiding blaming the reader for all misunderstandings.

A more subtle form: trying to hold people accountable for your deductions from your description of their position.

I don't think it's wrong to hold people accountable for the implications of their ideas, even if they themselves haven't thought them through.

It's bad if they're starting from a straw man, which they usually are.

[Ares Land]

In my view, arguing and debate are worthwhile. How are people to be exposed to different point of views otherwise?
This may lead people to either refine their own views or change their minds. I think people do change their minds; it's just that notifying people that 'oh, hey, on that thing we talked about three weeks ago, I think you may have point now' is a bit cumbersome.
In the worst case scenario -- arguing against a particularly obnoxious troll, you won't change your opponents views (do they even have any?) but your arguments may very well turn out interesting to bystanders and lurkers; and there always many of these in any internet conversation.

This being holiday season, I feel I should point out that some times and places are more conducive to debate. I don't think arguing politics with your uncles/aunts/in-laws at Christmas dinner ever gets any positive results.

Now, there are forms of "debate" (using scare quotes for reasons that will soon be clear) that just aren't interesting. One is sealioning.
Another case, and one that gets very quickly on my nerves, is that some subject have long been settled.
To be specific: racism is wrong; women are human beings; this is basic stuff we shouldn't have to still get into arguments about. And yet that sort of thing seems to consume most Internet debate right now (also Christmas dinner, at times )
I'm not interested in debating these; in fact I strongly feel there are outdated and dangerous views that should be shamed, not engaged with. Various forms of racist argument are only brought up for the purposes of shifting the Overton window anyway. It's not like there's anything we can do with racist trolls.

[jcb]

Unfortunately, I've become pessimistic over the years about arguing, and I've been arguing on the internet for nearly 20 years. My thoughts:

1. I can't think of a single time that I ever convinced anybody that had significantly different positions from me of anything. (Granted, many of those positions that I was trying to convince them of were ones that I too now think are stupid and wrong.)
2. However, I have changed my own positions many times from arguing and losing.
3. However x2, The biggest changes in my positions didn't come from arguing at all, but came from experiencing new and different things.
4. As Zompist implied, I think that arguing rarely change anybody's position in the moment. Instead, at best, it plants a seed that might take weeks, months, years, or even decades to grow as they mull it over, experience new things, and then finally understand and accept it.
5. Arguing is nearly useless at changing interests. For example:
   • You're not going to convince a slave owner that slavery is wrong and that they should free their slaves, because they benefit from the slaves' labor.
   • You're not going to convince the CEO of a cigarette company to admit that smoking causes cancer and to stop making cigarettes, because they benefit from people smoking.
   • You're not going to convince somebody running a casino (or being sponsored by one) that gambling is bad and wrong, because they benefit from it. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eiDhuvM6Y )
   • You're not going to convince somebody that's young, healthy, and just got laid off because of a lockdown that lockdowns are a good way to fight covid, because their livelihood is directly tied to being able to work, which they can't do during a lockdown.
   • There are exceptions to all of these examples, but such people are rare. Even rarer yet are those that realize it, admit it, and are principled enough to act on it.

[Raphael]

[*] Arguing is nearly useless at changing interests. For example:

• You're not going to convince a slave owner that slavery is wrong and that they should free their slaves, because they benefit from the slaves' labor.
• You're not going to convince the CEO of a cigarette company to admit that smoking causes cancer and to stop making cigarettes, because they benefit from people smoking.
• You're not going to convince somebody running a casino (or being sponsored by one) that gambling is bad and wrong, because they benefit from it. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eiDhuvM6Y )
• You're not going to convince somebody that's young, healthy, and just got laid off because of a lockdown that lockdowns are a good way to fight covid, because their livelihood is directly tied to being able to work, which they can't do during a lockdown.
• There are exceptions to all of these examples, but such people are rare. Even rarer yet are those that realize it, admit it, and are principled enough to act on it.

Interest is one strong factor that often keeps people from being convinced of something, but IMO it's not the only one. There's also pride. A proud person might not even be convinced of something that's in their interest if their pride gets in the way.