> Ok, so what does it look like when someone's argument is defeated rationally? I was going to say "court trials", but it turns out that lawyers use fallacies

> Ok, so what does it look like when someone's argument is defeated rationally? I was going to say "court trials", but it turns out that lawyers use fallacies and persuasive tactics all the time, so I cannot. :/ Maybe most of the time, in a trial? > Who is the referee of when the defeat occurs? The judge. :) (I know what you're angling at, though... who watches the watchers, how can anyone judge what is objective truth, etc.) > What happens to that person if they don't agree with the referee, and persist in their irrational argument? You can keep trying to show them why it is irrational. I've been able to show some people why part of their reasoning is circular, for example. > What should you do if they don't go quiet? Let them rot away in their collectively dim zero-sum-game worldview? > What should you do if they never go quiet, no matter what you say? "Never"? How do you know they will "never" go quiet? The anti-suffragists have largely gone quiet... The anti-mixed-race-marriage folks have largely gone quiet... Are you also present 1000 years in the future and somehow know these eventualities or lack thereof? (It's almost like you're making an Appeal to Zeno's Paradox, here.) > EDIT - it is incredibly apt that this comment is getting downvoted :-) Those people are dumb and devoid of faith in their own arguments, because you don't seem to be violating the offtopic rule and your comment is pointed albeit reasonable. In the spirit of the very principle the original post was about, have an upvote.