Best way to win an argument

[DC]

What's the best way to win an argument?

[Heatman]

For me, before getting into any arguments, I would make sure to have my facts on ground that can easily be verified. I would never go into blind arguments because I can't win it. With facts, you can easily win any argument that you're getting into. 

[Justin11]

@Heatman is right, you get facts before putting up an argument on the table. I don't like arguing blindly, information is knowledge and ignorance is misinformation. 

[Reality vs Adventure]

Entire societies refuse to see facts. What then? WTF do people do then? 

[The Blackangel]

Knowledge defeats ignorance every time. If knowledge doesn't have much play, wit can also win the argument.

When I was in boot camp, there was a recruit that was constantly bragging about how smart she is, how strong she is, and all sorts of other bullshit. One night when she was going on and on to try to prove some "superiority" that she thought she had over me, I simply looked at her and said "When you're done kissing your own ass I'll give you another response because, truth be told, my ass is full of shit too."

She was so pissed off, that she didn't bother me again for quite a while.

[Grungie]

Knowledge is key, but also you have to be able to properly get your point out. All the knowledge in the world won’t help if you don’t know how to explain it.

I personally also tend to stay away from politics online and stick to more factual topics as opposed to opinions. With the factual stuff, it tends to be more black and white. Like “does this exist?”, or “is this feature possible?”.

With politics, it tends to just get annoying, as lately, a lot of people tend to fall under “you have to 100% agree with me or you’re obviously the extremist of my opposing political affiliation”. Or how individual news sites are only considered factual if it agrees with them, and untrustworthy if it disagrees with them. So when you regularly run into people like that, it’s like, why bother?

[Empire]

Step back and stop having a god damn say, It's just fine to be wrong about things. And in that case you don't "win"—but that's okay, because nobody wins or loses anyway. Just have a discussion with someone, and get ready to say, "hmm, that's a good point" or "yeah, I guess I hadn't thought about it that way."

[The Blackangel]

5 hours ago, Grungie said:

Knowledge is key, but also you have to be able to properly get your point out. All the knowledge in the world won’t help if you don’t know how to explain it.

I personally also tend to stay away from politics online and stick to more factual topics as opposed to opinions. With the factual stuff, it tends to be more black and white. Like “does this exist?”, or “is this feature possible?”.

With politics, it tends to just get annoying, as lately, a lot of people tend to fall under “you have to 100% agree with me or you’re obviously the extremist of my opposing political affiliation”. Or how individual news sites are only considered factual if it agrees with them, and untrustworthy if it disagrees with them. So when you regularly run into people like that, it’s like, why bother?

Another thing, is don't respond in anger when it's just an argument. There are things that should never be brought into it, like someone's children. They are to be kept out the disagreement. But if someone does bring them into it, then a fist to the mouth is appropriate.

The best is a calm, educated response. That is the best weapon in an arsenal of arguments.

[Withywarlock]

I don't necessarily like to 'win' arguments, nor would I constitute this as advice for 'winning' as if it's a competition. I do however want to inform people of the best course of action and encourage good habits when it comes to arguing. Case and point, my time on r/fatlogic. People go there to berate fat activist and Health At Every Size (HAES) logic, and it's usually fat people (myself included) who do it, but I try to break the posts down bit by bit and address individual points. One of my favourite posts I contributed there was this one, wherein I take each sentence thereabouts and address the points with links to studies and professionals who know what they're talking about. I also try to remain polite and respectful, with a few jabs here and there.

To quote Jonathan Pie, the best satirical news reporter of any corner of the political spectrum I've ever seen, on President Trump's election "How do you think people are gonna vote if you talk to them like that? When has anyone been persuaded by being insulted or labelled. [...] That's why people wait until they're in the voting booth: no-one's watching any more; there's no blame or shame or anything and you can finally say what you really think and that is a powerful thing. [...] And all the polls were wrong! All of them! Because when asked people can't admit what they think. They can't admit what they think, they're not allowed to. [...] you can either f**k off, or you can engage and debate me and tell me what I'm getting wrong because Trump just won the White House. Being offended doesn't work any more. Throwing insults doesn't work any more."

I appreciate not everyone has the patience to debate and discuss and try to reach people, but I think it should be the first course of action and should be attempted. You can't opt out of drastic measures once you've initiated them, and I like to think there's still time to stave off from that when it comes to those I can speak with in person.

[Clasher]

Over the years I have realised that people are so over their head in what they think is right and not even a good lay out of points could change their minds, they could only pretend to  agree to what you are saying in times when the majority are opposing them but deep in their hearts they still hold their own opinions at high regard.

Please this doesn't any way suggests a known fact but I am only speaking from my personal encounters with some people and how I have observed a certain behavioural trait.

So when I am caught in an unfortunate situation of arguments I don't really try to convince you I just state my points and if you don't accept I just let it be.

Unless otherwise the scenerios requires I butress further to convince a judge or someone who is meant to approve my contract.

[Heatman]

On 7/8/2022 at 10:02 AM, Grungie said:

Knowledge is key, but also you have to be able to properly get your point out. All the knowledge in the world won’t help if you don’t know how to explain it.

I personally also tend to stay away from politics online and stick to more factual topics as opposed to opinions. With the factual stuff, it tends to be more black and white. Like “does this exist?”, or “is this feature possible?”.

With politics, it tends to just get annoying, as lately, a lot of people tend to fall under “you have to 100% agree with me or you’re obviously the extremist of my opposing political affiliation”. Or how individual news sites are only considered factual if it agrees with them, and untrustworthy if it disagrees with them. So when you regularly run into people like that, it’s like, why bother?

The only two subjects that I find it very difficult to get into an argument with are politics and religion. There's no way you would approach these two subjects that it's ever going to end nicely. Some people have been killing with regards to those two subjects and I'm never going to fall victim to it. 

[Grungie]

3 hours ago, Heatman said:

The only two subjects that I find it very difficult to get into an argument with are politics and religion. There's no way you would approach these two subjects that it's ever going to end nicely. Some people have been killing with regards to those two subjects and I'm never going to fall victim to it. 

It's fine if the person is levelheaded, but in my experience, that only happens irl. Online that tends to be a rarity in my experience. It's also very common online where it's okay to associate negative stereotypes as the norm towards the opposing side, and negative stereotypes of what you identify with is either just a stereotype, or a blatant lie that was created as propaganda.

So when you run into people like that, it tends to get pointless discussing things with them.

[Heatman]

9 hours ago, Grungie said:

It's fine if the person is levelheaded, but in my experience, that only happens irl. Online that tends to be a rarity in my experience. It's also very common online where it's okay to associate negative stereotypes as the norm towards the opposing side, and negative stereotypes of what you identify with is either just a stereotype, or a blatant lie that was created as propaganda.

So when you run into people like that, it tends to get pointless discussing things with them.

In real life, it's even hard to get one who's even levelheaded enough to try and understand your own point of view with regards to politics or religion down here. Everything for them goes to the extreme and I'm not psychologically read for that kind of discussion because it's not going to yield much to me or even the person. 

[Justin11]

I don't like getting along with hot congested argument publicly, I don't live public lifestyle, I'm mostly indoors. The best way I stay off from argument is being close to my electronic devices all day, I don't associate with crowds that wouldn't add value. 

[Heatman]

18 minutes ago, Justin11 said:

I don't like getting along with hot congested argument publicly, I don't live public lifestyle, I'm mostly indoors. The best way I stay off from argument is being close to my electronic devices all day, I don't associate with crowds that wouldn't add value. 

Personally, I find getting into arguments in real life face to face a lot more easier than doing it online. It's a lot more stressful having to argue online and typing for so long. You won't even have enough time to type in all you need to back your argument points and another one will come up. It's difficult and I hate doing that.