[Uehreka]

Ehhh… Sure you won’t convince the person you’re talking too, but it’s often worth it because if you really destroy their argument in a way that’s visible to bystanders, you could quietly convince a lot of them (since they can change their minds quietly without any ego cost).

[NateEag]

I think when you "really destroy their argument," the average human bystander thinks "... what a jerk."

If you quietly make a few good points, don't push too hard, and ask sincere questions to help you understand the other person's perspectives, the average human will think "that guy is a class act. He had a good point, too."

Convincing anyone other than a hyper-rationalist of almost anything significant is more about emotions than it is about cold, hard facts.

And most humans, for better or for worse, are emphatically not hyper-rationalists.

[pixl97]

It depends if your relationship with that other person exists in a vacuum or not.

If that other person is being manipulated by cult like behavior from some other party it can be very difficult to convince them of anything. The other party has no problem with lying then doubling down on the lies forever.

[majormajor]

"Destroy their argument" as a tactic is likely to get you in trouble eventually because few people are always right about being right.

The first time one of those bystanders sees you come in hot when you're wrong - or even just when they think you're wrong, since many arguments are fuzzier - you lose a lot of credibility you may never get back.

[Uehreka]

Depends on the context. On HN, sometimes I’m dead wrong, sometimes I’m spot on. I’d bet that there are people who downvoted me when I was wrong, upvoted me when I was right, and didn’t realize I was the same person. Heck, I’ve probably done that to other people on here too.