Does any good come from contradicting someone's reality?

Why would you limit your perception of another person's beliefs and internal reactions to your arguments to whatever they write or say to you at the moment?

 

I thought that the point of having beliefs was sticking to them. I used to adapt whatever belief seemed the most true, but I found that ultimately I didn't have any ideas of my own--- I was just drifting from one idea to another and none of the ideas meant anything to me. Sure, I'm flexible about most things but there are some beliefs that I hold that cannot be reversed. It's my point of view. But I get what you're saying--- sometimes I will debate what has been called 'fact debates' in which I try to outfact someone by using references I've read about by credible sources. Whether I believe them or not tends to be irrelevant. I ran into an arugement the other day with my sister over this. It was clear that my side was more factual and rationally would have won-- but she declared it an 'opinion' debate. I panicked. I didn't understand how I was supposed to debate opinions- after all, they are just opinions and have very little merit outside of a person's own world. I realized that I had no opinion about the topic I was debating, or point of view. I just was using facts I knew to counter hers.

 

Would you feel like you are holding back, unable to be fully honest or yourself, within the relationship?

 

While it's true that your debates are unlikely to change people's opinions on their own, they do contribute to a greater pressure over time, provided you are not advocating a particularly unusual viewpoint. (A 9/11 truther really has to shoot shis wad all at once to have any hope of success, because the target would probably be made to feel very foolish if se advocated shis newfound convictions outside of the internet. You, on the other hand, tend to represent a more mainstream set of views, and if you are debating folks from the fringes, you are almost certainly just adding to the similarly-minded arguments they are already encountering.)

My point is that changing a person's views is a group effort, and furthermore, the effects that you can actually see will be much less than those in reality, because a debate opponent will seldom admit defeat to you, even if se must admit it to himself the next day. The nature of debate pretty well ensures that those who do most of the work will not be the first ones to see the results.

 

You got to try and convince the innovators and early adopters ^, you're wasting your time if you're dealing with the majority, and especially those dirty laggards (_STJs, just kiddin', kinda...).

 

I don't think it's wrong to express why you feel a certain way, surely. But having the expectations that the other person will be swayed is not in our hands. People have to come to conclusions on their own - the only thing you can do (or anyone of us) is simply present the case in whatever way you feel it. You can argue for a while, but no one is convinced by the argument itself. The person's heart determines how they view it. If your words helped them get there, then so be it. But it wasn't your words that changed their mind. Only an individual has the ability to change his or her mind.

 

Generally, do you debate in order to change people's minds, or for your own enjoyment? Could you find a debate satisfactory regardless of the results?

 

This is my new definition of open-mindedness.

 

Hm. I read it as one and the same, but I see what you mean now. I guess it depends on whether or not you believe "you're doing it for the person's own good." Like in a parental role.

Why do you feel someone needs to be persuaded, then? For what purpose would you do this? If it's for your own self satisfaction, then you're going to get hurt. If you feel that the individual is seriously deluded, then you're trying to teach them something. The only way you won't get hurt is if you're expression your own opinion, and not trying to persuade someone else's. Otherwise, the motive is not pure and it will cause personal discontent.

Just my opinion.

ETA: Ah, never mind. I posted this before I had a chance to read what you previously posted. Never mind.

 

There may be a win-win solution: try debating without letting the other person know it.

[youtube]EFSW9QCaFNQ[/youtube]

Then se can feel smart (or privately stupid, as it may be) answering all your questions, and you can get the gist of shis beliefs and reasoning without making assertions of your own and rocking the boat.

 

If it makes you feel any better sometimes when I get into an argument I have to walk away think about it then start changing my views. Maybe you don't see when they change their minds but they are actually considering what your saying.

That happens a lot with me actually.