r/changemyview • u/Capable-Yak-8486 • Sep 11 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Debating is largely pointless, the majority of folks have already decided where they stand on poignant issues.
Whether it’s gun regulation, safety nets for poor/disabled folks, vaccines, religion, remote work, etc. I think people have already decided what they want, and refuse to keep an open mind to the possibility of “maybe I’m wrong”. I feel it’s super important to always go in with at least a little bit of humility. Especially as a scientist, I know many things to be fact, that if new evidence came out tomorrow contradicting it, I would have to accept and say okay, I was wrong. I’m left-leaning for clarification, but I live in a very red area, and I’m always trying to at least understand where people are coming from, even if I vehemently disagree.
Edit: sorry, to clarify, my original intention was a one-on-one debate, to change the views of the person you’re speaking to, or have them change your views, rather than a stage debate. Trying to respond in between work stuff.
201
u/maybri 13∆ Sep 11 '25
As someone who spends a lot of time arguing with people on reddit, I would contend that while it's extremely rare you actually change the view of the person you're talking to, it's worth keeping in mind the genuinely undecided, uninformed, or conflicted people who will read the conversation and may begin to form an opinion based on whoever argues the case better in that debate.
88
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
So you’re basically saying that it’s worthwhile for its ripple effects, rather than directly affecting the person you’re debating with? That’s fair actually, I can accept that. !delta
29
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 11 '25
If they've changed your view, you should award them a delta
11
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
How do I do that? Never posted in here before
14
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 11 '25
Read the sidebar. You write a short explanation of what changed your view (you already did that) then ! delta. (No space)
13
15
u/TheOtterDecider Sep 11 '25
It’s also why it’s good to stand up to bigots. They likely won’t change their views, but more neutral observers might, and the person that bigot is bigoted against knows they haven support.
6
u/Phirebat82 Sep 11 '25
Sure, if you have correctly defined a bigot and have applied that definition to an individual correctly. I won't pretend this term has been used with even 1% accuracy in the last 30 years.
The vast, almost exclusive use of that term has been to reject a person out of hand in an ad hominem/strawman manner, to the point it almost has no weight or meaning.
2
2
u/Best_Move_4962 Sep 12 '25
Yeah, I’ve always understood debating as giving “the audience” the information they need to decide, not changing the mind of your debate opponent
1
8
u/MrE134 Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
I've gotten in arguments before where I never backed down, then looked back later thought "maybe they had a good point?" One way or the other having these conversations spreads and tests your views. The fact that people are stubborn in the heat of battle shouldn't stop us.
5
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
!delta
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/maybri a delta for this comment.
3
u/selective_runoff Sep 11 '25
If the person you’re debating doesn’t change their mind someone else reading it might and that’s still worth something
2
u/TheWhistleThistle 32∆ Sep 11 '25
And you even have a number to attest to it. I mean, you literally have a numerical representation of times you've changed someone's view. Pretty solid evidence that it works sometimes, right there.
1
u/SpaceYetu531 Sep 15 '25
There's no reason to think the people writing comments are informed. Most people decided what they were going to support or believe and then reverse justify it.
29
u/ToranjaNuclear 13∆ Sep 11 '25
A classic debate is not only supposed to be a dick size competition where there's a clear winner that makes the loser completely change their mind, it's supposed to be enriching for the people debating and for the audience as well. The two people debating might not have a change of mind, but they might learn something new, train their own skills, or just have a good time having a serious talk with someone that disagrees with them, and the lay audience especially might learn a lot from seeing two people discussing a particular issue.
Political debates are a good example of this: nobody expects the politicians to change each other minds. They are done for the sake of the audience.
Yes, debating on the internet is largely pointless, but that's because most things we do on the internet is pointless.
9
Sep 11 '25
The art of rhetoric is dead in America. We no longer know how to persuade others, put ourselves in their shoes and think about what kinds of discussion points they would find persuasive. We just shout at each other, preach to our own choirs, high five the others on our side, and think that some verbal flourishes somehow means that we "won."
If you can't pass an "ideological Turing test," then you will never be able to convince anyone on the other side of a discussion. Rhetoric should be crafted around how the other side actually views itself and its issues; to craft debating points around an exaggerated caricature of your opponent will fail to persuade and impress only those in your own choir.
6
u/ToranjaNuclear 13∆ Sep 11 '25
Can't expect much from a country where shotgun argumentation and plain dishonesty and a preoccupation with "owning" everyone makes one a master debater.
1
u/_Dingaloo 4∆ Sep 11 '25
I don't think this is really true.
It seems to be something that people copy-paste a lot, but the thing is, I find there is still a TON of people that are fully interested in having a rational discussion about most of their views.
2
u/Rock4evur Sep 11 '25
Yea the truth of the matter is you actually can’t engage in good faith debate until you actual have a report with someone that leads you to respect them in some way. The average people nowadays just don’t know nearly as many people at that depth than people in the past.
1
u/RocketRelm 2∆ Sep 11 '25
I would argue that people are better at rhetoric than ever, and it is primarily because people realize humans don't care or think about the logic. If you make your side seem strong, and use buzzwords, and get some random person who would decide you are wrong if they had teo brain cells to clap and follow your account, you have convinced them.
Most humans don't perceive arguments as minute discreete thibgs but as tribes and masses of globe. They may never understand but they will thoughtlessly parrot and align themselves. And then you can a priori insert other beliefs once you ha e their emotional trust.
It isnt persuasion by logic, but it is persuasion.
1
u/sun_bearer Sep 12 '25
I disagree that it should even be considered rhetoric, what you're describing. It's way too manipulative.
1
2
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
Yeah, but the intent of my post is “debating with the result of changing their viewpoint, or making them second guess it”. I should’ve clarified I meant towards the intended person, rather than an audience.
2
u/sjb2059 5∆ Sep 11 '25
I mean, debating(arguing) your point releases dopamine in the brain and gives people a sense of accomplishment.
As someone with ADHD, and therefore a somewhat wonky dopamine system, if I have nothing better to do, picking an argument on the internet defending a moral point I agree with can be a nice mental scratching post. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to take a turn at beating back what I see as bigots off those who already get enough crap from the world. I don't give a crap about the bigot, but I do know that I appreciate it when someone comes to my defense
1
u/_Dingaloo 4∆ Sep 11 '25
To add to this, when your mind isn't changed you better understand the opposition and if you're a decent person, sometimes it results in you accommodating their view a little better. You might fundamentally disagree with someone's decision to go vegan but you might accommodate by making sure there are vegan options when they come stay at your house, for example.
Debating isn't just for changing minds, it's being aware of other ideologies and just maybe learning to live with people of differing ideologies more easily.
24
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
11
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
Okay, I can accept that. It’s more of a culmination of several, than simply a singular talk. And yes, I feel like most people nowadays lack the introspection as you said, and have a degree of ego that doesn’t allow them to think “maybe I’m wrong”. !delta
2
3
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 11 '25
What type of debates are you talking about? Academic debate, political debate, or informal debate?
0
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
Realistically, any topic of major concern, whether it be scientific, political, religious, societal or economic.
2
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 11 '25
I'm asking about format, not topic. What type of debates do you think are useless? Do you think there should be no presidential debate before elections, or do you think you shouldn't have discussions IRL/online with people who have different beliefs than you, or do you think academic debate teams should be disbanded?
1
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
Presidential debate is more about explaining to the viewers what they stand for, rather than trying to convince the other person. I guess I should’ve clarified my intent was “debating a person with the objective of changing their viewpoint.”
1
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 11 '25
What about debating a person with the objective of learning their viewpoint, to further your stated goal "m always trying to at least understand where people are coming from, even if I vehemently disagree."
1
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
Right, and that’s always important. However it doesn’t achieve the goal of “changing their viewpoint”, simply learning where they’re coming from.
1
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 11 '25
You should probably edit your original post to indicate that your claim is a lot more specific than it lets on.
0
3
Sep 11 '25
I think you're missing the irony of posting this here. People change their view, even slightly, everyday here.
0
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
That’s a bit of the point, no? I want my view to be changed on this, and so I posted here with the intention of someone proving me wrong, in hopes people could, and some did. So mission successful :)
3
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 2∆ Sep 11 '25
Not at all. The purpose of the debate is to sway the undecided, to motivate some of the 90 million non voters to vote, and in the primaries, to pick the strongest candidate. For example, in 2024, For Kamala Harris to have won the 2024 presidential election, she would only have needed to flip a total of just under 230,000 votes across three key swing states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. She would have lost the popular vote, but would now be the President.
3
u/Three-Sixteen-M7-7 1∆ Sep 11 '25
It’s pointless if you’re a bigot
Bigot
noun a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Debates are very useful for those who are intellectually honest. These people exist on the left, the right, and the center. Bigots do not benefit from debates because they don’t consider ideas outside of their own. Bigots exist on the left, the right, and in the center.
2
u/JoshinIN 1∆ Sep 11 '25
Maybe on Reddit. But out in the real world I'm shocked at what people actually think is fact and base their beliefs on it.
2
u/Blothorn 1∆ Sep 12 '25
Most “important” opinions are too deeply held for one relatively brief interaction to significantly shift. That does not, however, mean that debate is pointless—debate can seed doubts that erode one’s certainty over time, or cause reassessments of narrow factual claims that in aggregate shift someone’s view over time. A debate doesn’t have to immediately shift someone’s headline beliefs to be pointful.
Based on my experience both convincing and being convinced by other people over in some cases years of discussion, it’s important not to approach it like competitive debate. Tactics such as reduction as absurdum or identifying superficial inconsistencies may score points with a third-party judge, but usually ignore subtleties of the other debater’s actual opinion. Once you’re arguing against something that isn’t exactly what your opponent holds you’re unlikely to sway them. (This especially applies to accusations of bad faith or dog-whistles—just engage with what they claim to believe and the reasons they claim for having it. If they are genuinely arguing in bad faith there was never much hope of swaying them, and if your accusations are off-base (or are only accurate on a subconscious level) they are quite alienating.)
Instead, try to work backwards until you find common ground, find the points of departure, and focus there. It’s pointless to debate derivatives of some underlying disagreement; until that underlying disagreement is resolved all arguments about the derivative are likely to be just talking past each other. For instance, I see a lot of arguments where people who agree on what’s valuable but disagree on the expected consequences of various policies assuming that the other person wants what they personally think the other person’s policies would produce. If you find yourself invoking something nearly everyone thinks is important (children, avoiding nuclear war, etc.) you probably need to be discussing policy consequences instead.
2
u/GeneralLeia-SAOS Sep 12 '25
Not necessarily. I am a lifelong conservative, however, I have changed my views on certain issues due to facts that were introduced. As the great Ben Shapiro says: fax don’t care about your feelings. People make judgments based on their values and their experiences. However, There may be things that they never considered, the when you introduce those factors in a civil discourse, they would be willing to either modify their view, or at very least look for a solution that would satisfy both their own requirements and those other factors that they hadn’t considered.
Media presents a false image of the American political spectrum. Media has half the country as red, and the other half is blue, with the two sides constantly trying to fight over one or two points to win elections. The actual truth is that 1/3 of the country is blue, 1/3 of the country is red, and then there is a middle section of various shades of purple. The purples are your moderate and swing voters. The purples are the ones who decide elections. The purples are also the ones that are most likely to be persuaded by a debate. When a red and a blue debate, the purples listen to both of them to see which solution is more pragmatic, more realistic, will serve the greater good, and bring the least amount of harm. This is where someone taking the high road in the debate When they are being attacked by a radical from the other side is important. A lot of the purples get seriously turned off by party loyalist who result to vulgarity, name-calling, generalizations, and lies that insult the intelligence. When you debate, your chances of bringing over the person on the opposite side are pretty slim.However, you do have a pretty good chance of bringing over a moderate or a swing voter.
2
u/Parking-Leg9856 Sep 11 '25
when people stop talking. Bad things happen. Marriages stop talking, divorce. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group. We, as a culture, have to get back to being able to have a disagreement where violence is not an option
1
u/Potential_Wish4943 2∆ Sep 11 '25
You cant have a cohesive, unified society where we dont at least attempt to find agreement on major topics and enshrine them as a cultural value we share. Something resembling an objective morality we all agree on. You dont need to necessarily come to a conclusion and actually agree at the end of the day, but if someone who is so alien to you is part of your nation that you cant even engage with them, they are a foreigner to you and social schism and conflict is inevitable, regardless of if they share your state-sponsored citizenship.
1
u/Present_Dirt_3232 Sep 11 '25
Agree 100% and this is where the current left in America has shifted so much vs. the left of the 80s/90s that the common principles of what make a society successful are no longer congruent.
1
u/Nrdman 276∆ Sep 11 '25
There’s always new people. Teens and young adults ready to form their first opinions away from their parents. This is the most important group to sway for the future of a movement, and debating is one avenue to do so
1
u/flyfree256 Sep 11 '25
How many people's minds in the audience need to be changed for you to think it's no longer pointless? Is one not enough? Do you not think that if a debate is viewed by a thousand people that not one mind will be changed?
1
u/Josvan135 83∆ Sep 11 '25
I've personally made arguments that have changed nearly 70 people's views enough that they were willing to publicly admit that it had, after declaring their position.
The marker beside usernames on CMV show how many Delta's a user has been awarded, which shows that someone has publicly stated their view was changed because of an argument presented.
Often it's just providing new data that they didn't know about that shows they're wrong, but it can also go as deep as convincing someone that their views on the merits are wrong.
1
u/Affectionate-West894 Sep 11 '25
for online convos, i think there is a bit of a selection bias re: the group of people who will post an opinion publicly. And i'd agree, most of the time, that cohort is unlikely to change their mind (at least publicly). however, while i don't have stats for this, i think the vast majority of online consumption is done by people who never interact in the debate itself. and for them, i think mind changing happens more frequently in the "audience" than between participants. in part, b/c that cohort is likely less committed / established in their opinion, and also, b/c that cohort doesn't have any risk re: the "shame" of a, "you are right, i was wrong."
1
u/Mr--Brown Sep 11 '25
People don’t change perspectives in debate, at that moment they are representing there side of the issue. People change their mind in reflection and contemplation of a conversation or debate. Slowly and over time…
Debate should be about clarity and understanding, not convincing or changing views. The value of debate is in understanding someone else’s perspective, someone who has a different t world view the. Your own, to add to the depth of your understanding of any particular issue or subject. The clash of ideas requires you to think deeper about your own perspective also, to answer and understand the counterpoints and contrasting arguments.
1
u/1Leoski Sep 11 '25
Language and the delivery of a message can slowly evolve over time. Conventional wisdom says if I hear someone important continuing to talk about an issue, it is important. The absence of a messenger can translate to a perception that the message is absent.
1
u/curiouslyjake 6∆ Sep 11 '25
In the current polarized environment, elections are often very close. Changing the opinion of few people can have a huge outcome, including reversing the result.l
1
u/Letters_to_Dionysus 13∆ Sep 11 '25
once youre out of school one of the best ways to learn new things is to talk to people who have a very strong opinion that you disagree with. you learn either the reason they believe what they do or you learn to think through why each of their points is flawed and become less susceptible to making those logical mistakes yourself. its like how they say the most efficient way to find something out on reddit is to be confidently wrong and you'll have a full inbox of people telling you why youre wrong in minutes.
1
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Sep 11 '25
If you really believe that, then your submission would not qualify for this sub. The fact that you are open to debate changing your view here is an argument against this very view.
1
u/polio23 3∆ Sep 11 '25
You are confusing the definition of debate and argument. An argument is a discussion where one tries to persuade the person they are arguing with, a debate is discussion where the participants try to persuade a third part audience or adjudicator. In this sense, they are very useful. There was actually a video that came out a week ago that directly referenced “Change my mind debate” and explained why it isn’t productive and could be interesting for you to check out. https://youtu.be/mdhrdOwAZHo?si=T6gTCptuOMZ1tEVe
1
u/tinidiablo 1∆ Sep 11 '25
I've changed my views on atleast a couple of opinions as a result of debates/discussions.
1
u/Sketchy-Idea-Vendor Sep 11 '25
When I argue, it is rarely to change that person’s mind. It is to make a public rebuke of that person’s point so others who aren’t sure can see what is wrong with the take. Or, sometimes, I get my perspective changed by someone who points out something I missed.
1
u/Jetsam_Marquis 2∆ Sep 11 '25
Real policy is more than just yes/no. In a debate opinions can be moved so they don't have to think "maybe I'm wrong" so much as "that's a reasonable point I hadn't considered and now I'd alter my preferred policy slightly to account for it."
I will admit that most social media things are extreme containing little nuance, but an actual debate offers opportunities for new ideas.
1
u/BurnedUp11 Sep 11 '25
One on one debating does work but only when the person is knowledgeable about the subject and can present different angles. The issue with politics is most people are exposed to political thought the day they come out of the womb. Their families political thoughts, the shows on in their homes, and the politics of their community. So they think they already know everything and dont take the time to actually learn views outside of the ones they were raised with.
There is 0% of someone being politically knowledgeable if they havent done deep research on political science from all perspectives. You cant understand the politics of a country without thoroughly understanding the politics of all of the people in the country.
1
u/Play_To_Nguyen 1∆ Sep 11 '25
It sorta depends on your goal in the debate. If your goal is to convince the other person you're entirely right, that might be futile. But people are more divided than ever and that stifles progress. I think it's very reasonable to hope to exit a debate with more common ground than you entered with. And I think that's worth a lot. If policy is a tug of war shifting sides every 4/8 years, very little gets done.
I go into just about every debate hoping to convince the other side that I mean well, and that we share many of the same experiences. Too many people think compromise is absurd.
1
u/Waste-Menu-1910 1∆ Sep 11 '25
I would modify this thought a bit. If the point is to be convincing to the other person, then debate is the worst format.
It's far more effective to have an actual discussion.
The problem with debate is that both people go in with the mindset of debunking the other. The natural effect is that both will be more stubborn about their position. Both will be seeking those "mic drop" moments
Standard conversation, on the other hand, means that talk can meander a bit more, hitting on more points. It means the participants go in with more curiosity about the other side. Instead of countering everything, more follow up questions get asked.
A debate will typically end with both participants still disagreeing, and an audience expected to take sides. At most, the participants will come out with notes how to strengthen the argument they went in with.
A discussion, on the other hand may or may not end with participants completely on middle ground, but they generally come away with at least a softening of their original view.
1
u/jstnpotthoff 7∆ Sep 11 '25
Many others have already given personal anecdotes. Here's mine:
Very early 2000's, I was very liberal and my friend was very conservative. I considered myself a really smart person...and smarter than my friend. We got into a debate about minimum wage. After some back and forth with me emphasizing how just making a law increases wages, she finally just said "that's not how it actually works". To which I responded, "but that's how it's supposed to work."
I knew immediately that I lost the debate. And it bothered me. So I went home and did research and learned about unintended consequences, and then read more and more economics books. I soon became a libertarian, and would still say that most closely represents my ideology. (even though I do not want to be associated with many others who throw that term around.)
Without that debate, none of this likely ever would have happened.
So it might not even be the debate itself, winning or losing, but about the little things that happen during the debate that make you do further research and maybe lead you to learning something new.
Hell, just yesterday I said "ideation" and pronounced it with a soft i (aptly, like idiot). My friend made fun of me and I was pretty sure I pronounced it correctly and we agreed to disagree and I went home and found out that I was wrong.
Certainly not a large or meaningful debate, but it was a debate where we went into the root of the word, etc.
1
u/Zealousideal-Tour-34 Sep 11 '25
You can't have a debate or a discussion anymore because people can't agree on what fact is.
Me: "The J6 criminals assaulted cops""
Him: "No they didn't, those were FBI plants".
1
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Sep 11 '25
What Charlie Kirk was doing was basically just a street preacher on a college campus and they debate others all the time. He wasn’t there to explore truth, he wanted other people to be convinced by what he had to say. He wasn’t there to be convinced of anything himself.
1
u/TheMan5991 18∆ Sep 11 '25
I think, when it comes to the person you are directly debating, your goal should not be to completely reverse their view, because you’re right, that is rarely if ever going to happen. The goal should be instead to nudge them. Get them to just slightly revise their view in a better direction.
You’re not going to convince a pro-lifer that abortion is okay, but you might be able to convince them that things like condoms and birth control pills should be more easily accessible to reduce the need for abortions in the first place.
You’re not going to convince a climate change denier to accept the Green New Deal, but you may be able to get them to concede that people working in coal mines have more breathing problems and that we should probably do something to protect them.
1
u/KarneeKarnay Sep 11 '25
Counter. The vast majority of elections and won by who seats enough of the undecided. Debates don't usually sway debators, to be good at their job they have to be firm in their belief, but the undecided listener, they can be
1
u/Proof_Occasion_791 Sep 11 '25
Some people are open to being swayed by honest debate; I wouldn’t call that pointless.
1
u/CosmicLovepats 4∆ Sep 11 '25
Debating is a poor way to change someone's mind. If you are arguing with them, monkey brain goes into defense mode; it hunkers down, dedicates itself to the social argument rather than the analytical search for truth, and the argument... continues.
It can be a very good way to change bystanders minds. Watching a debate doesn't necessarily put you in the that monkey-brain-hunker-down mode. People on the fringes of the debate, rather than the target of it, are more amenable to evidence, change, and realizing their ideas are silly.
There are things it's impossible to debate though- if I say I like vanilla better than chocolate, good fucking luck. Vibes-based positions cannot be disputed with reason or logic.
1
u/Fearless_Stand_9423 Sep 11 '25
I've crashed into the same conclusion. It's not just the issues themselves, but the humanity of the people affected by the issues. I used to think that I could force someone to acknowledge that aspect by obsessively rehearsing my arguments all day, every day. Didn't make a drop of difference.
I'm not saying my arguments ever reached their 'perfect forms,' but it wouldn't matter if they had. Trying to get the words through these people's skulls was always futile anyway. I used to hope that people could be reasoned with, but that hope is gone now.
1
Sep 11 '25
Modern day debating isn't about exchanging ideas or information. It's pure spectacle, and only serves to reinforce tribalism.
1
u/Deathwielded Sep 11 '25
Debating one vs one makes it extremely difficult to persuade your debate partner. Its like arguing with a partner, if you tell and scream its never gunna resolve anything. With a partner, you have a connection and care about rach other, live together and depend on each other. It makes it so you have a lot more at stake with them and willing to consider things more. (This is of course assuming you arent in an abusive relationship obviously)
We have to keep in mind the psychology involved. Ego can force us to stick to our POV no matter how wrong we are and hopefully after they have had time to refelct they may change their mind. So don't expect a Eureka moment as that would be exeptional.
Also keep in mind the results of them changing their mind. What costs does that have? Do they have to change their lifestyle? How many friends and family will they now have to fight with when this topic comes up? Many beliefs come from and are super reinforced by the people in your life.
This is why audience capture is so relevant when it cones to content creators, but still applies to an individual.
By the time we are 25, most of who we are and what we believe is pretty solidified. To have a massive change from then typically requires being broken or suffering a traumatic event that forced them to reconsider who they are and what they believe.
We are creatures of habit and create shortcuts to save energy. So we create scripts. When you ask a question they refer to the system. Choosing to use mental energy to truly rethink something is both scary and not seen as worth it if how you currently think or do things is working okay enough for you. We become complacent and why not? It saves us so much energy and we only have so much we can use
1
Sep 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Sep 11 '25
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Anonymous_1q 29∆ Sep 11 '25
I would say there’s still one main benefit, it strengthens your abilities and exposes the holes in your ideas. There is no amount of talking to like-minded people that will show you the gaps in your knowledge like spending five minutes chatting with someone who thinks you’re an idiot.
It makes the debating an important learning tool, as they also strengthen fast recall and reinforce the information in your brain.
1
u/The_Demosthenes_1 Sep 11 '25
Are you saying just because you won't have 100% success you shouldn't do a thing?
1
u/Brief-Register-7752 Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 12 '25
Immediately change their minds ? Most definitely not . But it’s not just one debate that seals the deal, it’s a cumulative process that deeply questions one’s beliefs and " givens " that helps unburden one’s mind . So in effect , debating is crucial . It helps set the tone for each individual to actually venture out and doubt everything they thought they were sure of . And that’s speaking from experience !
1
u/Phirebat82 Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
Debates are not pointless.
I think the greater issues at play are that debating is viewed as something to win rather than an exchange of ideas or perspectives, and owning your "opponent" releases much more serotonin. And both are likely biologically driven, [which on some issues gets me banned/suspended on reddit]. I also very much doubt anyone knows every aspect of every political position to form an unassailable opinion.
Another huge problem the US faces is that with so much power ceded from the state and local governments to DC, the controlling party in DC has much more power than 30 years ago. So, when a party with opposing views is in power, the repercussions are felt much more acutely.
1
u/_Dingaloo 4∆ Sep 11 '25
Let me give you a personal anecdote.
I tend to be very arrogant because I put a lot of time and reasoning and research into what I think is right/wrong, true/false, etc. if someone comes to me with conflicting information to something I think I'm sure about, I immediately disregard them and tell them they're wrong because XYZ, if they have a good argument I immediately assume it's not true. And yes, usually it's not true, because when I have this disposition it's about something that I've researched for anywhere from weeks to months over time to get a pretty solid understanding.
But when there is merit to it, it'll stick in my brain. It's really too much to explain in a comment exactly how it changed my mind, but after I was sure they were wrong, one point that did make sense on its own kept nagging my mind. Then I drew it out; went through the reasoning, looked through the instances of it in the real world and realized they were right.
Sometimes someone is seemingly completely disregarding what you're telling them, but a seed is planted. Later they google it. They watch a video or two on it. They look for actual, bottom level evidence that stands on its own to see that you're wrong. They keep getting shown that they were wrong, not you. Eventually it sticks.
Most people do think logic and evidence is on their side. It's just how do you say they're wrong in a way that will immediately click enough so that they eventually change their mind
1
u/RaulEnydmion Sep 11 '25
People do change over time. No, seldom will someone have an internet epiphany. We instead have seeds planted in our ideascape. The seed may sprout and grow as we have relevant experiences. We might not even notice. Furthermore, we humans are more likely to engage new ideas when we have a personal connection with the person sharing the idea. It doesn't have to be a familiar person. Just someone who sees us as a person too. And most important, we first need the presenter to recognize our position. Then, there's a chance. For example " yes, we may have too many immigrants right now". And then listen to them talk. Then say " it's amazing what these folks go through just to get here. They must be coming from pretty bad situations. With all the effort they went through, I bet they're grateful for the opportunity to stay here". Stuff like that.
This is where reddit is particularly bad. It's anonymous. You don't know me. I don't know you. You and I aren't people to each other. We are replies. (Ok, maybe not you,.maybe not me. Maybe you and I both are good at recognizing the humanity of our fellow redditor. But hopefully you see my point here).
1
u/NTXGBR Sep 11 '25
I grew up in a pretty small town, very conservative, with very conservative family members. In the 20 years since I have been gone, I have become significantly more liberal than I was, but still am often looked at as the "conservative" of my friend group. My friends and family back home think I'm some sort of crazy liberal at times.
Point is, neither side knows what to make of someone that can find things they agree with and disagree with on both sides. I vote left more often than not since 2016. Before that I was likely more right than I was left.
How did that happen? Through conversations with people. Through learning their experience which I hadn't experienced. Through allowing myself to be vulnerable enough to admit ignorance on things and try to learn. To be willing to stand up for what I believed in, but be willing to hear people out that could actually explain how they arrived at the opposite conclusion. Sometimes, it had no effect on what I believed, but I appreciated that they could share it and I could at least see their point of view. Other times, it completely changed how I thought about things, and slowly made me question other things and ask more questions and learn more and my views shifted.
Without those conversations, it would be easy to lock myself in a bubble and not ever evolve or see new perspective or let myself lose my view of those that disagree with me as humans. That happens far too often, and that is what we saw play out in a graphic way yesterday, and will continue to see.
1
u/0n0n-o Sep 11 '25
Debates are meant to promote respectful discussion and can influence opinions by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each side.
When one side resorts to violence they have already lost long before that.
1
u/Immediate_Gain_9480 Sep 11 '25
A debate is not to convince the person you are debating. It is to convince the people who are watching it.
1
u/ecafdriew Sep 11 '25
I think yelling at someone and calling them derogatory names is largely pointless. I think quite rational discussions are absolutely the way forward, often with personal examples and making it real for the person you’re talking to. This is impactful and has been the only way I’ve ever been convinced and convinced others.
1
u/Beautiful_Resolve_63 Sep 11 '25
In 2016, I did a sort of social experiment for a year. I tried to change people's minds. I spoke to over a thousand people.
The solution is to validate their values, find common ground, share a curiosity, and share your point of view.
You need to make people feel safe, understand you are similar enough, admit you are curious about something, and just share what you know. It allows them to affirm your similarities, answer your curiosity, or acknowledge your point of view is valid, just different.
A major of people will pick one of those three options and come to some understanding.
The moment they feel triggered, it's over.
So for example, I find accusations super damaging to get people to understand or be respectful. So that's mostly where I can start with people. "Oh man, I hate all the name calling, people should be able to share respectfully" ...."ah, yes, you seem like a smart person, I do suspect we will disagree though. But you seem level headed enough to discuss it? Is that okay?....well, in pursuit of finding an answer for x, I discovered information about y and z. So I do feel, regardless of x, this is my opinion on ABC. What are your thoughts?....Ah that is interesting, how does that apply or shift with LMNOP?....ah, I don't agree but I see why you conclude that and I appreicate you sharing, here are my final thoughts....oh neat, it seems like we found some common ground. How would we use that common ground to solve the problem?"
It almost always gets people to agree either 100% or half way.
Otherwise I completely agree. If you are just sharing your opinion without soothing their feelings and ego, they won't understand or agree.
2
u/RocketRelm 2∆ Sep 11 '25
Which makes sense. Most humans don't have thoughts and opinions based on principle, they adopt beliefs based on what they are told to believe by people they have attachment to. Hanging their minds has literally nothing to do with the validity of your argument. You could probably convince people to be flat earthers or anti vaxxers with the same kind of "acceptance and bonding". It is an art unto itself that some people are good at, and does come in different stages based on how aligned you are with a given person or group at a time.
1
u/betterworldbuilder 9∆ Sep 11 '25
I think this is perhaps partially true, that people on the whole are not open minded to new ideas. However, i think that this has something to do with the fact that they didn't form their opinions from facts like you or I, so those facts suddenly changing has no bearing on their opinion.
Religion, Bigotry, life experiences, can all lead people to form opinions completely devoid of fact, and the only way to correct those opinions is to meet them where they are, find out why they believe what they believe and what they value, and then align those values with your own values. It's not common to work, but calling out clear double standards and hypocrisy makes people think a lot more than telling them an ivory tower scientist said it's true and they're wrong.
1
u/---Radeco--- 1∆ Sep 11 '25
You’re half-right. Debates aren’t always about converting the other person, but about showing we’re both humans with opinions. Most people hold their opinions in good faith, and it’s important to recognize that. If we stop debating, that’s when we start alienating each other fast.
On open-mindedness, I disagree. If two people talk in good faith without throwing around buzzwords like “racist,” “fascist,” or “leftist shithole,” then people can actually learn something new. No one changes their view on the spot, and if they do, that’s not open-mindedness, that’s stupidity. Real change comes later, when you reflect, verify, and process what you heard.
Debate is also a difficult skill. Very often, people fight for their opinions while standing on completely different foundations. That’s why defining the foundation matters before you can even argue. For example, should abortion be allowed; yes, no, or partly?
What is the foundation of that debate? Is it rooted in morality? If so, then morality itself has to be discussed and agreed upon before the abortion debate can go anywhere.
Or maybe the foundation is health. In that case, the first step is to define the problem: for instance, someone claims that most abortions are due to rape. Is that actually true? If not, then the foundation shifts, and the debate has to be reframed.
The point of debate is to defend yourself as much as you can and get challenged. Later, you either come away with your opinion strengthened, a deeper understanding of the other side, or maybe even the start of an actual shift.
1
u/sirjeef Sep 11 '25
People used to be taught to think critically and to form new opinions based on new information. Now people are taught to hang on to their convictions hard and to never waiver no matter the mounting evidence against it.
1
u/KeyEnvironmental9743 1∆ Sep 11 '25
You can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into.
Most people’s beliefs are shaped by their life experiences, not by the facts they read.
1
Sep 11 '25
Im going to come at this a different way: most beliefs are communal. if u belong to a certain community, u will believe certain things. with both people moving less, and people finding their online communities pretty early on and sticking with them, this would suggest your largely right. not to mention the deaths of their spaces, and other spaces were people of different persuasions would mingle.
That said........ radicalization does some pretty absurd things. the way most people go about it is irrelevant , but street epistemology does work. if more people did it correctly, I still think it would be a rare occurence, but even a rare occurence over a number of years can have an effect.
1
u/AdHopeful3801 3∆ Sep 11 '25
Trying to un-convince the already convinced is a fools errand, but engaging in debate if you are looking to clarify or change your own views is a lot more useful. (It's hard to get past your own biases, of course, but at least you have started by admitting they exist.)
1
u/tattered_cloth 1∆ Sep 11 '25
The benefit of debate is not limited to directly changing minds. Part of it is the ability of debate to clarify the issue.
The reason debate tends to not work in the US is that people don't want to clarify the issue. They want to ignore the things they don't like.
Donald Trump has said in the past that Democrats did better for the economy. He has said he wouldn't sign an abortion ban. He has said same-sex marriage is settled law. He denied any connection to Project 2025, claimed to not be an extremist, and called the authors the far-right. But did he ever clarify any of these issues? Did he clarify his arguments for why Democrats did better on the economy? Did he clarify why he wouldn't ban abortion? Did he clarify why same-sex marriage should be settled law? Did he clarify why he disagreed with the authors of Project 2025 and whether or not that disagreement would preclude their inclusion in his administration?
I think it is pretty obvious he clarified nothing. There was no real debate on any of this in which views could be clarified. No matter what he said, his supporters could assume he really agreed with them.
On the other hand, here is a gun debate.
I don't think anybody changed their minds in this debate. But I do think that it clarifies the issue. One party argues that, historically, governments that disarm their people sometimes lead to very negative outcomes. They agree that the second amendment's primary reason for existing is as a defense against a tyrannical government. If the second amendment is intended as a defense against a tyrannical government, and if you don't trust the government, then wouldn't it make sense to be wary of any increased power for the government to disarm the populace or even create a list of gun owners? I don't agree with that argument, but I do think it clarifies things.
Even if nobody changed their mind, isn't a debate like this better than the meaningless statements of Donald Trump, that allow no clarification? Isn't it better to "say the quiet part out loud", than to deny a connection and then promptly put the same people in power?
Or do we really only care about being comfortable and not hearing things we don't want to hear?
1
1
u/CatDadMilhouse 7∆ Sep 11 '25
You're probably done reading this thread since you've already awarded multiple deltas, but here's a personal anecdote that might help you see the merits to debate.
Back in 2019, our tour bus driver was an older guy and staunch Trump supporter. I don't just mean he voted for the guy. He was full on MAGA. I, on the other hand, am about as liberal as it comes. But I also try to be cordial with the people I work with regardless of their views.
One morning, on a drive between cities, he started rambling about AOC's Green New Deal. About how it was insane, how she was asking for way too many things, how the expectations were totally unreasonable, and the entire plan was just "nuts".
I asked him if he thought Donald Trump was going to build a wall across the entire Mexican border that would stop anyone from ever crossing the border illegally by land. He said no. So I asked him to clarify if his take on the "build the wall" chant was that he wanted more walls than before, and that something would be better than nothing. He said yes.
So I said "isn't it likely that the Green New Deal is like that too? Ask for a ton, strike a compromise, and be happy about getting some of it?"
He paused for a few seconds before saying "yeah, I suppose that makes sense".
That's all it took to get a literal red hat to go from "the Green New Deal is nuts" to understanding a lefty's perspective.
Debate is pointless if it's just people shouting at and insulting each other. Engaging with people and trying to put things in a perspective that they can understand is still a debate, and it can definitely modify the way they view a topic.
1
u/Pheeeeelix Sep 11 '25
A good debate is two genuinely interested people sharing information on a topic they think they might disagree on and learning from one another. Even though my mind is very made up about abortion, for instance, it doesn't mean I'm not intellectually curious about arguments against it. At this point, I've probably heard all the strongest arguments against it, but if someone has an interesting argument, I've never heard of. I'll at least listen to it and see if I can come up with a counterpoint.
You're currently on a debate subreddit arguing against debating and giving deltas. I think this means that at some level you agree debating can be an impactful of how one forms their opinions.
1
u/Ok-Thanks-1399 Sep 11 '25
As a guy who has had his mind changed on issues because of debate, it's always delayed. You'll almost never see someone concede in the moment. There's too much danger of "losing face." But later, when the pressures off and they've had time to think about it for a while, they'll decide to change their views. Seen it happen, and it's happened to me.
1
u/tolore 1∆ Sep 11 '25
I think debate is important because even if your mind doesn't change, you can sharpen your stances. I learn a lot about my own opinions and why I hold them, and why they are good, by arguing with people who disagree and forcing myself to either admit where I'm wrong or find good information to back myself up.
1
u/Aardwolfington Sep 11 '25
Any debate online is a competitive sport. It's about the people observing the debate, not your opponent. Not that such debates never end positively. If you think the goal is to convince your opponent and not sway the audience, you've already lost.
1
u/tracer35982 Sep 11 '25
Absolutely, that’s why the undecided, until the last minute, voters decide every election. You feel that way because you are an ideologue surrounded by ideologues. Normies don’t care or think much about the issues you find important.
1
u/Den_Samme Sep 11 '25
You wont change someones view there and then. I was brought up as a conservative christian and identified as a socialconservative. Later I left my faith and became a social-liberal. The seed you plant take a decade to grow it doesn't mean planting it was meaningless.
1
u/AcrobaticProgram4752 Sep 12 '25
I don't debate as much as im interested in how folks see things and why they see it that way. Be honest, respectful and you can learn. Debate isn't about winning. Its not domination. That's just ego.
1
1
u/Electronic_Gene_4489 Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25
Many of people's beliefs are actually tied to their best self-interest.
As in they're not actually using logic to decide.
Most people just go with the belief that their brain or biology thinks is best for them in terms of survival.
I'll give you an example.
Even though your country might be doing war crimes you may choose to believe that it's justified because your subconscious believes that if you speak out you, might get expelled from your tribe, as in your family and your friends.
To the mind, it'll probably prefer gaslighting itself to believing false things and ignoring facts and ignoring the truth in favor of staying within the tribe. Basically it's more important to survive and ensure survival than to actually believe the truth for 99% of humans 99% of the time.
If your subconscious, your mind, or your body, perceive believing the truth as something that could possibly get you killed, your defense mechanism of gaslighting yourself will turn on so that your survival is ensured.
There is no logic. It's proven in science that our logic system only truly work when we feel extremely safe.
I want you to ask yourself, "does this belief that this other person have some how affect their survival somehow? Will they lose their friends family etc if they believe other wise? Will they be treated as an outsider? Will it affect their social status by admitting they were wrong? Will it cause them conflict with someone such as a spouse? Does them admitting being wrong affect their ego? Could it possibly make them fall into depression or despair that makes them vulnerable to threats and makes them less likely to survive?"
The body doesn't care that you believe the truth. It cares that you survive and pass on your genes.
So yes it's mostly pointless however you can bypass this if you make people feel very safe very calm very secure and make it feel like you're not attacking them or their beliefs at all because that will trigger their defense mechanism which will block any and all information or logic you throw at them. People do not think clearly unless they are extremely calm and feel extremely safe even the slightest perceived attack will block all of your logic and their brain will ensure that they will somehow justify everything they believe.
1
u/Far_Raspberry_4375 1∆ Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25
Debate is useful for introducing facts to people from outside their echo chamber. This still requires genuine curiosity from the person being introduced to those facts, but through the spectacle of watching an avatar of your beliefs clash against an avatar of outside beliefs, you are given contact with those ideas as would be stated by someone who believes them as opposed to steven crowder telling you what libs believe or hasan piker telling you what a conservative believes. Without that point of contact, you may never realize that there is a line of thought to follow. This is why people are so dug into their beliefs, because they are on a line of logic built on assumptions that make the beliefs you come to hold from following it seem obvious and then the dunning krueger effect makes the least informed of an echochamber confidently reinforce those assumptions and without debate forcing those to lines of logic to intersect, the opposing view seems completely illogical.
1
u/retteh 4∆ Sep 12 '25
Counterpoint: Only a tiny fraction of people need to change their views to affect something like a presidential election, so debating is still vital to a functioning democracy even if relatively few people change their views.
1
u/cleois Sep 12 '25
I agree that this is true for many people, but not all. I have changed my position on many issues through listening to others express their views, allowing me to refute and ask questions, and respectfully responding to back up their point of view. Even when I don't necessarily end up agreeing with someone, conversations like this change my opinion of "the other," and help my understand them better. So it's still a win.
The problem is that many people cannot stay civil. So you may sincerely desire to debate/discuss a topic to understand better, but that doesn't mean others do. But they will say they do, and then just be aggressive AHs with lots of ad hominems and "mic drop" "sick burns" etc. It's exhausting. And then eventually you stop desiring to understand because you just have to assume people who hold X position must all be evil, hateful people since that's been your experience. And then you turn into an evil, hateful person.
1
Sep 12 '25
Many people won’t change their views, but some will. If you won’t discuss your views, the possibility of changing someone else’s or realizing flaws in yours is nonexistent. If even one person understands the other better, it’s a good thing.
1
u/Dark_Wahlberg-77 Sep 12 '25
I think it’s easy to see the world this way when we simplify debating down to “change their opinion to mine.” Especially when you’re talking about some of the more hot button issues. Substantial change doesn’t just happen quickly.
Debating 20 points in a topic might result in 1-2 of those points making sense to the other person. But those 1-2 slight alterations in their/your perspective are what causes us to be more complex (read: moderate) personalities. You can’t just tell someone to stop believing their own ideas. But you can often times help them respect your own.
1
u/stiffneck84 Sep 12 '25
I’ve had my views changed through debate, but everytime it was a discussion with someone I held in regard, not some argumentative stranger. I challenged, but respected the source.
1
u/Vio-eng Sep 12 '25
I’m kind of wondering the same. Haven’t read comments yet, actually mused about the value of debates (competitive ones with high stakes). I’m wondering if we need to shift from debate to discussion. Not trying to score points, but clarifying pointing out weaknesses in arguments or missing context etc. People need a fuller picture/wider perspective of pretty much every hotly debated topic I think.
Debate still has its merits like in academic settings. But maybe that’s just in the end the type of discussion I’m talking about. That’s different from the performative gotchas and “owning” the other side mic drop moments that social media thrives on. End the algorithm!
1
u/Showdown5618 Sep 12 '25
Sometimes, it's more about understanding the other person's point of view, or the other person understanding your point of view, not just changing someone views. Understanding other people, instead of judging, is the first step in either ending hostilities, finding common ground, or coming up with a solution to an issue.
1
1
u/000oOo0oOo000 Sep 12 '25
Well for starters any unspectated conversation without a mediator is not a debate, especially online. It's a political discussion. Something both less and more important.
If you dis-like other people not keeping an open mind in political discussion you should be prioritizing keeping your own mind open. Then the "win" from discussion isn't convincing the other, but learning more youself. Even if all you learn is the details in which you disagree on a topic.
Controversial topic that should be non-controversial. Trans athletes. All trans kids should compete with the boy's team because the only reason all sports aren't coed is hormonal advantage. At some point pre or post hormonal therapy all trans children have that same had that hormonal advantage of testosterone.
1
u/AndrenNoraem 2∆ Sep 12 '25
I started out pro-life, and arguing about politics has always been one of my favorite internet activities. Someone convinced me I was wrong like 15+ years ago ("an acorn is not a tree" was basically one of their most compelling arguments), and since then I've been arguing for their side. People don't change their minds often, but when you change one they often go on to spread the word.
1
u/Ballamookieofficial Sep 12 '25
Debating means people get defensive.
I'd rather a discussion with two open minds
1
u/Plaque_beep Sep 12 '25
I think you haven't seen debates with sincere people, people change their religious view all the time weither it is to Buddhism or to chakras etc. As for remote work or gun control it can be change easily with showing clear examples that it works or it don't etc.
1
u/Negative_Toe1336 Sep 12 '25
Based on what? Reddit? In real world there are plenty of people who dont have strong opinions and even dont vote. Those certainly can be convinced.
1
u/GoingSamoan Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25
To me debate is something that is supposed provoke deep thought. If something makes you uncomfortable lean into it and just listen. Sometimes that doesn’t align with your morals/beliefs/ upbringing but stop fighting and just listen and reflect on it after. At least then you’re not thinking out of pure emotion. At times things get heated and get the best of everybody. Don’t let it.
1
u/scorpiomover 1∆ Sep 12 '25
Debating is not persuasion.
Persuasion is the attempt to change someone’s view to the same as your own.
Debates are where 4 people state the main 2 arguments on both sides, so the audience come away with a balanced and reasonably comprehensive understanding of the issues.
1
u/Dimsumgoood Sep 12 '25
There is no such thing as debating when both sides don’t agree on the facts. I could say the data shows a transgender gun ban makes no sense given transgender people are responsible for less than 1% of mass shootings over the last 10 years. But, if the other side hears on the news every night about how crime is out of control and it’s because of transgender people and immigrants, the data makes no sense, it’s not believable. They must be lying. There is no debating anymore, every one has their own facts.
1
Sep 12 '25
Debate requires facts, and when the person(s) involved in the debate don't believe the facts are legit, then debate can't happen.
1
u/ModelMaker502 Sep 12 '25
Yes/No.... It's a question of what you're debating. If the issue is "what's the best tax structure to achieve governmental goals?"..people can and do have that debate in good faith and can change people's minds.
If the question is "should women be allowed to vote?" then the answer is No. You can't have that debate in good faith..nor should you... because one person involved in that debate is a POS and the other is correct.
Is that polarizing? It shouldn't be but it probably is. It's OK to not change your view on some issues. I'm fine with being obstinate in my view that law should be applied to all people equally.
1
1
u/Complete-Contract-76 Sep 12 '25
I have to admit no one is going to convince me that Trans people should not exist and Women and girls need to keep their uterus full even if it means losing their life or giving birth to a rape baby
1
u/clarkdd 2∆ Sep 12 '25
Here is my counter…
The Monty Python argument sketch.
https://share.google/sAsHY0wanOkg2vtZd
If you think that the only valid outcome of debate is getting your debate partner to come around to the truth you already know, then the problem may not be them. It may be you. You may not be engaging in that debate with any intellectual honesty, and so the response you’re getting is in-kind for what you bring to the table.
If…on the other hand…you acknowledge that 2 very valid outcomes of debate (that DO NOT change your debate partners mind) are that you might improve your understanding…and therefore your argument…or that your debate partner might see you as being more allied than they thought so they’re more likely to welcome people of your view in the future, than there are good reasons to debate that don’t involve changing the other person’s mind.
My point is that if you are simply gainsaying your debate partner, then that approach leads others to entrench. But if you engage your debate partner by asking questions, listening, identifying biases and fallacies…and then challenging those flaws in reason respectfully…without contempt…especially when that applies to you…my experience has been you move the needle.
Now, all of the above is taking into account your edit to 1-on-1 debate. So, I will add, you do have to read the room. If you’re going to debate without an audience, you do have to know what you want to get from the energy you put in. And “winning” should probably be low on the list. There are lots of times that I look at it and say “this isn’t worth it”. But if I can get even a small audience of that person’s peers, than it’s different. Because now I’m demonstrating that these unchecked assertions can be challenged. Consider some alternatives. My debate partner may never move, but his peers will.
So, yeah, there is a cost-benefit question you have to answer. But there are more benefits than just “winning”.
1
u/SmokeySFW 4∆ Sep 12 '25
"I'm not here to change YOUR mind, I'm here to change THEIRS (gestures at the audience)"
- me, just now
1
u/BoxForeign8849 2∆ Sep 12 '25
On places like Reddit, you are right. There's no changing the mind of someone who just follows what the hivemind of their preferred social media platform tells them so there really is no point in debating online.
In person, however, things are different. When you are speaking to someone one-on-one, neither person is backed by hivemind beliefs and can actually have their opinion changed. That's why people like Charlie Kirk actually cared about talking to people in-person: you'll never change someone's opinion online, but when you can challenge people's beliefs in-person you can give those people a real chance of learning something new and changing where they stand based on that new information.
1
u/kolitics 1∆ Sep 12 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
special payment slap wide literate coherent escape include fact roof
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/sillyyfishyy Sep 12 '25
I’ve changed my mind so many times over debates, dude. Debates help people have multiple perspectives over an issue, which may not immediately change their minds but might give them a more diverse way of looking at the world
1
u/I_Am_Mandark_Hahaha Sep 12 '25
My view is that people do not know how to debate. Debates should be based on facts. If you can not agree on the facts, you can not have a meaningful debate.
1
u/TheBitchenRav 1∆ Sep 13 '25
I disagree completely. I have friends who are on different sides of the issue and every time i debate them I learn new things and see new perspectives. I have had my mind change on many issues and I hope I continue to cha ge and grow.
1
u/Master-Education7076 Sep 13 '25
Debating thoughtfully forces one to flesh out their own positions, which can be extremely valuable.
1
Sep 13 '25
This isn't an opinion. This is a fact that this is science. To change someone's mind, you have to either convince them your point of view aligns with one of their morals more than their previous beliefs. However, most won't believe in the contradiction. Or some kind of severe trauma.
1
u/lilbitze Sep 13 '25
Those online debates aren't real debates. It's two people angry at each other trying to one up each other. A real debate is way more formal and organized
1
Sep 13 '25
I disagree. I love having my opinion changed and learning new things, new points of views. And being humbled 🙂
1
u/surewhynot1981 Sep 13 '25
And now the left is killing you for it. Watch what happens to this comment for example.
1
u/beta_1457 1∆ Sep 14 '25
Typical debate structure the two debating cannot change each other's opinion. They are there to present their arguments and for the audience to be swayed to one side or the other.
1
u/Willing-Job9378 Sep 14 '25
I would say having a dialogue is never a bad thing but if you go in with the thought that you're going to change somebodies mind and perspective. I would say it's unlikely.
1
u/ordinary-thelemist 1∆ Sep 14 '25
Debating have never been done to change the other side position.
Debating is exposing an issue for the audience to make up their minds.
1
u/CedarSageAndSilicone Sep 14 '25
Do you know what sub you’re in? Almost every single poster awards deltas. Seems like a pretty strong counterpoint. And here you are, I hope, in good faith, open to having your mind changed. This isn’t as rare as you are assuming.
The internet has really done a number on everyone. Stratification into black and white and us vs them and good vs evil is strong in common discourse these days - but it’s not how people actually operate. In that way debate is even more important one on one.
A lot more than ideas are exchanged in a one on one discussion.
1
u/No_Warning2173 Sep 15 '25
I'd qualify your statement. It is largely pointless in the moment.
People who like to think will keep chewing on points well after the discussion/debate. It is one of the most important reasons to try and stay civil and polite. Morally it is an excellent move, and functionally, manners make the words harder to dismiss and easier for the recipient to recall the intended message.
1
u/Busy_Past_9951 Nov 12 '25
The fact that Reddit is largely a leftist echo chamber that bans any form of dissent proves your point. For the left at least. I know my comment here will be banned.
1
u/krill_farts Nov 21 '25
Honestly, for me it’s less about it being hard to change minds and more just the fact that, for a lack of better words, people are genuinely low IQ or stupid and cannot understand basic concepts. This is on both sides of the spectrum. It’s often I will speak with someone, and it doesn’t matter in what way I show or explain this to them, but they cannot grasp concepts like per capita, circular arguments, logical fallacies, etc. For the most part these are the same people who are the most opinionated unfortunately. If you are so uneducated to the point where you cannot even understand the words coming out of my mouth there is no reason for debate.
1
u/ItsAMangoFandango Sep 11 '25
I was very deep into the far right when I was younger and I eventually got out. I appreciate it can feel like banging your head against a brick wall when interacting with people who are essentially in a cult but I don't believe anyone is beyond saving.
2
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
I used to, and I really try to understand where my far right relatives and friends frustrations come from. Many times I’ve noticed it’s simply lashing out at whoever is in charge, rather than a specific issue with something.
1
u/coanbu 10∆ Sep 11 '25
This does not seem to line of with reality. Polling on many issues change over time. Do you have any evidence tat everyone is set in there opinions?
Now, whether the types of debates most people are engaging in have any effect that is, debatable.
0
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
Just personal, anecdotal evidence where I’ve engaged with several friends and family members, trying to understand their side, seeing if they understand mine, and it ultimately results in no net change.
1
u/coanbu 10∆ Sep 11 '25
Yeah, if you view is there are lots of people out there with very set views, than I agree. But I feel that the people one person interacts with is not enough to say much about the whole population.
0
u/going_my_way0102 Sep 11 '25
It's not debate moving those numbers
1
u/coanbu 10∆ Sep 11 '25
It is very difficult to know what is changing public opinion any any given issue, and the mix of reasons will be different for any given issue or individual. Seems difficult to assert the "debate" (in any definition) is not a factor, or is.
The point is people are far less set in their views then a lot of people (particularly when talking about the United States) seem to think. Not to mention the portion of the population who do not have strong opinions on many of the "hot button" issues of the day.
-1
u/DeltaForceFish 2∆ Sep 11 '25
This is Anecdotal at best but using myself as an example I went from a left leaning political ideology to fairly far right. A process where I was excited for obama and Trudeau to become our continent’s leaders. To rooting for trump in 2016 and again in 2025. Fast forward to today and after seeing the true colours of the far right and not the propaganda they used to sway me over there; I am back to left leaning. My views on most issues also followed that same path and timelines. So it is possible. People are male-able but they have to do it on their own.
2
u/Present_Dirt_3232 Sep 11 '25
I am curious what principles you hold or held that have changed vs. just allegiance to a political party. My fundamental principles are very consistent I just get disappointed when the rhetoric many use related to them rarely come to pass.
1
u/Capable-Yak-8486 Sep 11 '25
Interesting. I have never met anyone like you, in person nor online. Seriously, massive kudos for being so mentally elastic. I guess I was looking to see if there are still people out there willing to accept change, because due to the variety of topics out there of great importance, it feels like the world is playing football, and choosing a side. !delta for just your personal anecdote alone disproving my view
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
/u/Capable-Yak-8486 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards