[drewboo]

I think people get frustrated since even if you actually get through to someone and understand their perspective, it doesn't guarantee that person will be open to learning and abandoning their previously held beliefs.

It's difficult to accept that some individuals will never be open to a change of mind, or maybe that the patience required is too much.

[themodelplumber]

For sure, there's no guarantee. For this reason absolute truth has at times been turned into an emotional baseball bat under such circumstances. It's frustrating to lose traction, or even find oneself pushed backward. Argument thus becomes a full-time employee of boiling emotion.

And that's also a really good reason to have a simple framework to help with the moderation of effort, if the goal is to change a mind. For example, at the very least it may need to be understood that such a process could take years and years. It's not even just a logical precision or debater-quality question; it's also a question of energy, relationship values, and emotion.

I'd add that at an individual level there are also some leverage points that aren't available at a group level. For example, you can sometimes more quickly identify and speak to an individual's value system. E.g. are they afraid of being closed-minded in general, and as such do they get sucked up into every conspiracy that comes along? Usually there are a lot of little values that add up, within the individual. Walking through these can bring outside perspectives to an individual's awareness more quickly, as perhaps-unconscious motives are made conscious.

[drewboo]

The contrast between the individual and group level is something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

Your point about the value system is intriguing. In my experience, debate has always been more fulfilling on the individual level, since it feels like the exchange of ideas comes more easily. Trying to expand this to a wider audience takes much more effort like you described.