> Arguments on the internet almost never have the effect of persuading the person you're debating of your opinion when they didn't previously hold that opinion

> Arguments on the internet almost never have the effect of persuading the person you're debating of your opinion when they didn't previously hold that opinion already. Well yeah because the arguments are all poorly defended; see below. Not going to change my mind because the tide goes in and the tide goes out. > Debating, after all, is almost a bit like a sport. Now imagine someone challenges a boxing world champion to a fight, and the world thinks that the fight is worth watching. Now the champion turns it down, thinking to himself "It would be a waste of my time to fight this person who is just so much worse of a fighter". ...that would be unsportsmanlike. Except that if scott_w doesn't comment somebody else can. The analogy breaks down very fast because if the world really thinks somebody should argue with the random person then anybody in the world can. If the world doesn't think that then there'll end up being no replies and the world doesn't care. Also almost certainly if you ran into a world champion in the street and challenged them to their sport they wouldn't accept