I think I've finally come to realize that it's not worth it trying to argue with people on the internet.
A good debate requires that all participating parties are at least partially willing to be proven wrong if counter evidence demands it. People who are so invested and so firmly believe in something that they would post about it on the internet are highly unlikely to fulfill said requirement. There's simply too much personal attachment to the subject at stake that they can't afford losing.
Furthermore, you can not reason with idiots. Idiots are not rational. You can not convince an idiot that he is wrong, because the sheer fact that he is an idiot means that he is too illogical and irrational to even begin to understand that his arguments and line of thinking are flawed.
nice options field faggot
It's not worth arguing with people in general. No one even tries to persuade through appeals to a person's reason anymore because it's so ineffective. Subtler forms of persuasion are necessary.
>>35935
>I think I've finally come to realize that it's not worth it trying to argue with people on the internet.
Agree. The only time arguments are fruitful, a normal conversation would have sufficed just as well.
>People who are so invested and so firmly believe in something that they would post about it on the internet are highly unlikely to fulfill said requirement.
I think this blanket statement is too broad. I can post about a belief on the internet without a strong conviction or emotional attachment. I myself hold a number of weakly-motivated beliefs which I could and often have changed if presented with a compelling enough insight. They are not the type of belief that I would argue vehemently, just what I “feel” is most appropriate given lack of information.
You're right though in that a strong belief is more likely to be reinforced than undermined by any sort of argument.
>Furthermore, you can not reason with idiots. Idiots are not rational. You can not convince an idiot that he is wrong, because the sheer fact that he is an idiot means that he is too illogical and irrational to even begin to understand that his arguments and line of thinking are flawed.
This is extremely true. I just try to avoid idiots as much as possible, for my own sanity.
>>35958
I can agree it's a bit too broad of a blanket statement and it completely depends on at what time and place and with whom you are arguing. Like you say, the weaker and more undecided their stance is and the more they seem to be willing to consider outside opinons, the more fruitful the argument will be. "Can someone explain to me what makes you enjoy Eva, I don't feel like I get it at all" is going to be a much more pleasant discourse than "Eva is a fucking trash-tier anime. Prove me wrong".
>>35935
What I usually do is straight up ask if the other person is interested in changing his mind before spending any more keystrokes.
No shit
It's only worth arguing if you think people around you are on the fence and will be swayed by watching
>>36065
Yes, this is the point half the time of arguing. Not because you hope to convince the other guy, but so that your POV looks like the better one to the lurkers.
>>35935
Of course not. Redpilled users are here to shitpost and make memes.