I don't tend to debate politics (either online or offline), because for the most part, I find that people who differ from me in their opinions generally do so because they start with a different set of axioms.<p>Say, for example, one of us thinks that raising children is important / a duty, one of us thinks it's not / a bad idea, and from that come all sorts of policy decisions.<p>We can, if we want, do thought experiment style discussions around it all, we can learn more from each other, but ultimately no-one is going to convince the other.
Want to really get someone to consider your viewpoint? Carefully consider your ideas first, then tell them <i>once</i>. Be silent while they say whatever they want in response. Then drop the subject.
What this person doesn't understand is that debate isn't about changing your opponent's mind. A debate is won by convincing the audience.
A while ago I did a bunch of thinking about how to convince people and came down to that it's usually one of three techniques: coercion, rhetorical persuasion, or modeling good behavior. (Broken down as violence, active non-violence, and passive non-violence.) I used to believe that persuasion was generally more effective at convincing others than modeling, but these days I'm not so sure.
I people constantly complaining about modern web frameworks but these people never offer concrete alternatives. It’s always “it depends” or whatever to avoid even an example of what they are arguing _for_ and why it’s better.
There are lots of online articles referring to studies that arguing usually just entrenches people's previously formed opinions.<p>Here's an opinion: Mastodon threads are just as stupid as Twitter threads.