| jason1637 said: I've been thinking about this a lot recently after i got into an argument today. I was talking to my friends about random shit that doesn't matter and then they started talking shit on the US(me and these friend's are Americans) . I called them out on this and asked why they were talking about the US in such a way. Then the reason they gave me was about Donald Trump. I told them that if you don't like one person that shouldn't reflect on 300+ million people. So they callef him stupid either way, and i told them that had nothing to do with the US. Since we were on the topic of Trump i asked how he was stupid and they gave me the usual response that he's a racist and that he only cares for himself. So i decided to prove them wrong. I even pulled up some articles i found from google and there response was that " your white of course you would agree". This was pretty stupid because most of them were white and that race shouldn't play a role in the conversation. Also the evidence was right in front of them and they disagreed. I decided to drop it and we hanged out and went our separate ways later. But all this day it reminded me of something one of my teachers told me a few months back that you canr really win a argument because you can show as much evidence as you want but people will still believe what they want. I pretty much agree with this but im curious to see if you guys think arguments can be won. |
Of course you can win. But the judge cannot be your opponent, that's where your situation failed. Had you presented evidence to an audience while your opponent simply made bald assertions, the audience would have been persuaded to your side undoubtedly.
It's rare that an opponent will admit defeat.
