Why internet arguments are useless and how to start winning arguments 

I cant remember who said it but it really hits home with this video: " You cant argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with expirience "

This is the kind of videos people should see and listen to. And music.

And then reply, "google it."

I just stumbled across this channel this morning. These videos are gold. Thank you for spreading this valuable information.

In short: Don't try to prove them wrong. Ask them to explain their viewpoint instead, and in detail.

I always ask people to explain their view point in detail, never really works.They give a short, peculiar answer and become even more positive about their beliefs.

you just don't have to win the argument. you either get knowledge if you were wrong or you give knowledge to someone if he agrees with you. it's a winwin for everyone.

So in short, If someone disagrees with you, you will feel threatened so your initial ideas are emphasized to make you stubborn to learn the perspective of other sides. Also, watch what you say because it may make your own ideas seem less promising (Backfiring effect). Lastly, ask the other party to explain their argument, so you can catch the little detail to expose their faults. In the end, if you cannot come to a conclusion, just move on.

This video changed how I view arguments. I feel like it taught me something valuable!

Here's a new method to use next time you want to win an argument

"Because it says so in the Bible..." And at that point you realise there is no rational discussion.

I watched one video of your's and thought about how the human mind works. Now I'm just addicted to your videos.

Isn't this an argument on the internet as to why arguments on the internet are pointless?

its called the socratic method btw.

I've actually done this before without thinking about it. It doesn't always work, of course. Sometimes people get offended and expect you to already know what you're asking them to explain. When they reach that state, they are at risk of believing your queries have been made in bad faith.

Well, this explains why my "arguments" never turns out as ineffective and uncivil. Trying to see things from other peoples perspective help too. And if everything failed, I just pretend to agree.

I'm going to the Ted Ed channel to argue about religion in the comments sections wish me luck!

21 people don't like to be wrong.

Congratulations, you're the first channel i've subscribed to in 4 years.

Holy shit dude I just found you channel, but your videos are amazing. The logic behind everything is explained in such a clear and un-biased way, all made with a quality-over-quantity approach. Thank you, this has changed my view on everything. Subbed.

Awesome, keep going. Great channel! Good music, explanation, voice!

These videos really changed my perspective. Thank you so much!

you've got a bright future ahead of you. i'm completely sure this channel is going to hit it big. best of luck to you and thanks for the videos so far

I'm gonna try this with a bigot... wish me luck

Absolutely amazing video. Thank you so much.

Totally changed the way I'll handle my arguments now. I've never thought of it like that.

People often argue just want to win and secure their self esteem.

Human studies are always intriguing. Ty for the videos

Thanks!! It's simple and maybe both sides involved can learn something in this way!

Interesting video, keep it up!

I reached a similar conclusion by using a very basic version of dialectics: whenever someone pushes with a belief that contradicts what I know is right, I ask why do they believe that, or why do they want X or Y thing over the healthier alternative... I keep asking calmly, but expecting always a more complex answer, more insight to their motives and reasons to take that position... until they start to realize the flaw on their logic, or we reach a middle point to agree on... it's very useful =D

I like how this video explain about argumentation mechianic ... but i think it's very optimistic

Thank you!

Use it on yourself as well to filter and refine thoughts. Next time you think you believe something ask yourself how you would explain it to someone else in detail.

Do the studies of the backfire effect check for long-term effects? I recognize that _during_ the argument they put up defenses, but when they think about it later, does any of what you've said sink in? You probably can't change somebody else's mind during a discussion; They have to change it themselves, on their own time.

This is excellent.

I love your videos.

Hey, I have a question: so, since you said that if you show the person contradicting evidence they will just have a stronger belief in their opinion, if you ask a biased person (lets use people against vaccination as an example) to explain their reasoning, if they get a more moderate opinion and then express their change of opinion in some way making it clear to you that their opinion has changed, what would happen if you then showed them the evidence which explains why children must be vaccinated?

+Bite Size Psych can you explain this concept in more depth?

I think the emotional component of a discussion is just as important. Many people (especially stubborn ones) have pride so you can't make them feel like you are winning and they are losing in some sort of intellectual struggle. they're going to want to resist you because admitting their loss will make them feel lesser. Allowing someone to feel like they've come to the truth by their own virtue makes it much more palatable. So in asking them to explain something in depth, it shouldn't be done in a challenging tone but a genuinely curious one. Let them start questioning things on their own and if they're honestly interested in the truth and the evidence is out there, they'll get closer to it.

i just did that before watching the video and it really helped

I came up with a technique a bit like that on my own. It was to ask the person to explain what the other guy think. Doesn't work as much as what you described, though.

Ahh this channel is just so good. :)

The best way is to guide someone into seeing the truth if they are wrong. Get them to question it themselves rather than just tell them they are wrong.

This video is all good, but don't forget that if you ask yourself to explain your belief in detail, you may crush yourself in the process. This is good if you are checking if you are wrong but bad if you have already crushed the other side and it's now your turn to provide arguments for yours...

There's also the heavy side benefit that arguing this way often leads to ones self-being more moderate. Which is a GOOD thing - the more strongly you're against something, the less likely you'll listen to rational evidence or someone else's arguments - whereas if you consider it from someone else's perspective and their side of the argument, even if you still disagree - you may find a part of the argument you were totally missing before and can now take into consideration.

I recently had a situation where I asked the other party to explain why he believed and tough the way he did about a particular topic. His answer: "I don't have to explain it because I've thoroughly thought about it and I know I'm right!"

How would this apply if you were arguing with an incredibly stubborn friend (and I mean incredibly stubborn) who thinks clouds are opaque and you're trying to explain that they're translucent?

This is actually very interesting, but I'm a bit concerned because the problems I have when it comes to arguing (mainly with my mother) isn't based at all on facts or logic. She simply finds faults about me and gets severely upset if I remain calm if she happens to be in an emotional state of mind. I do my best to really avoid the drama and arguments like your video mentioned to just calmly walk away, but it isn't always that easy. How would you explain these types of people and to avoid arguments breaking out because of how they act?

very interesting suggestion. I look forward to testing it out to see if it works. fyi the reason I am initially convinced that your hypothesis is correct is that I know that the "flight or fight" reaction is so deeply embedded in our evolutionary past/DNA that it's very difficult (but not impossible) to override.

great video

i try this method to ask them to explain in details but after they explaining they still didn't become moderate of their belief. they still very sure of their opinion. when i point out of the weakness of their explanations, they it start to become backfire effect. what am i doing wrong?

So after they explain their point should I explain why their explanation is wrong or still no?

You are actually explain the socratic method, In which you ask questions to change people's minds.

Beautiful science at it's finest :)

Pure as we begin, moved by will alone.

Strait from how to win friends and influence people, the only argument you win is the one you don't enter.

Can someone explain evolution in full detail for me, please?

This seems like really solid advice for most people, maybe I'm delusional, but I kinda feel I win arguments most of the time, and make people change their mind

so kinda like the Rogerian argument?

I always hate when someone spread a strong opinion in theme, when i already have different opinion on it. And this usualy harden my original opinion even more, and i become anoied, and the other persons seems to me more stupid than before. Only if they are polite and have a good arguments i am ready to change my opinion. So I prooved for myself that you are right.

i usually just ask for a source for their argument and if they cant provide one i say "well how can i ever prove you wrong then?"

good luck arguing over the internet

Hello Bite Size Psych. It seems that we want to win the argument because a lot of us feel weak and insignificant in our daily, "hum-drum" lives and we crave some kind of excitement. It seems like it goes back to the "fight or flight" response though, like you mentioned in your vid, here. We feel threatened for some reason and we seek out those who we want to pick an argument with who we deem to be a threat to our personal beliefs or something of that nature because to argue with them, it gives us some kind of sense that we will win the argument for our unsupported or unpopular beliefs and talking points in some way. Maybe there are a lot of other reasons too, (as well).

While the advice to talk to the person and question them about this position is no doubt well intentioned, and could even provide some benefit, the degree to which this is the case is considerably more limited in practical application. As noted by several commentators down below, not only is this tactic commonly turned upon or co-opted by the very people that you should be seeking to persuade, but beyond that this does not address the common case in which the person is largely justifying their opinion based upon sources of information that are flat out incorrect. At this point you have two options, either attempt to debunk the information (which the Backfire Effect should render ineffectual) or ask them to explain what that piece of information is arguing, at which point they might (not unreasonably) argue that they don't remember the specifics, but that that doesn't make it not true. You can attempt to bring that evidence for them to reference, and proceed to question them from there, but at that point you put yourself in the position of arguing against an elaborately thought out currently absent crazy person's theory, at which point you are back to arguing against something they believe. This in turn undermines your efforts, since at that point the Backfire Effect, if it works the way it is presented here, would also prevent, by virtue of combining with the effects of Cognitive Dissonance (since the piece of evidence is "helping them") to make the person more likely to subtly shift their thinking to agree with the points the evidence makes. The only circumstance in which this works is if the cognitive dissonance is so strong that the evidence starts undermining that person's other firmly help beliefs, at which might that may work to your advantage. This is not, however, common and cannot be relied upon for convincing someone of something. So which I can see this approach having some limited benefits, I cannot see it functioning as an overall counter to the Backfire Effect, at least as the Effect is presented here. So given this, what instead should the correct response be to people who sincerely believe this mis-, and dis-, information?

Bite Size Psych I am confused, What do you do after they explain themselves? Do I go into MY reasonings behind what I believe? Or do I start to point out facts about why they may be wrong? I like the idea of this approach on someone when engaging in an argument. But you kinda left us all hanging with what to do after you listen to their side. I don't want to tear down their strong belief to a moderate one, and then back peddle by reinforcing it again by proving facts, as you said.

to win an argument is to not engage in one. instead change the engagement into a discussion surrounded by a "safe zone" where neither parties will feel attacked. start by explaining that you not here to prove anyone wrong but are simply after the "truth" of a topic. this way no one can be "wrong" and there is no opposition, only two civilized and caring human beings bettering their understanding of the world.

I don't think this tactic will work as much but I'll try

Oh, you have no idea, man. Ever since I was little, my mother and I would debate over useless things that neither of us cared about. We never got angry, we just saw it as fun and an entertaining way to pass the time. I never realized it when I was younger, but as I got older, my mother explained to me how she always seemed to win these debates or end them in draws: she had me explain in full detail my thoughts and processes on my opinions. That was it. As I have grown even older, I simplified it into something easier - ask five levels of 'why?' Usually this makes the other person arrive at the root of where they are making assumptions or realize that they don't know as much about something than they think they do.

But how do you ask people about how things work, when they value they don't know how it works? And their lack of knowledge actually strength their beliefs?

Good things to consider :o

So.. Use the Socratic Method?

Back when I was more involved in politics, I realised that whenever I was arguing with people all that happened was that they became much more firm in their beliefs. I took to trolling and pretended to be of the same opinion as them, but far more extreme. As I got more extreme they would either agree with me, showing them up to be extremist and irrational, or they would say 'hang on a minute' and argue in the other direction. From there it's pretty easy to just throw out logical fallacies that are easy to debate, and throw in some insults here and there to make them more defensive, and you could actually make them adopt a more moderate position.

TLDR: to win an argument you have to breed doubtful feelings on the opponent.

Something I find ironic (although not necessarily bad) is the fact that this technique works only because the person you are arguing with wants to "win" so badly that if you challenge them with your own argument, they won't back down, only get stronger. However, as the title of this video suggests, your goal is to win the argument too. I think the biggest thing you can get out of an argument is understanding and perspective. I really like this technique, because it makes you really take an introspective look on your beliefs, and articulate why you believe them. I think the biggest benefit would be, if you were arguing over "X", and you took position "A" and your opponent took position "B" for both of you to articulate how you arrived at those positions in the first place. Maybe this can both lead you to position "C", or at least, 2 differing positions that were closer than the distance between "A" and "B". This is a big rambling mess and I hope someone understands what I am trying to get across because I didn't do it well. I guess my point is that the whole "trying to win" thing, is kind of the biggest issue with arguments in the first place. Humanity would be much better off trying to find a middle ground instead of trying to fight and only make the gap in their beliefs larger. But I suppose it is the human nature of "fight of flight" described in this video that makes my argument an ideal instead of reality.

Confirmation bias is one of the worst aspects of the human condition.

I knew I was always right, this video proves my point! 😂

Great video, thank you! One question - especially online people wouldn't argue, but just give you a web link of someone else making their point.... then what? :)

Sometimes I ask myself, "Is what I'm thinking wrong? Have I been believing lies all this time?"

If I found out this myself (completely without help of Internet etc) am i then kinda smart?

I was just in an argument with my younger sister that 1+1 was is 2 not 5 lol

The argument about vaccines is an interesting one. See I feel it's safer to vaccinate our child with individual shots instead of the "cocktails" the some doctors try and inject into infants. I'm skeptical about vaccinating for viruses that are not relevant to the age of the child and location; for example, Hepatitis B. However, I found that the whooping cough vaccine was necessary but only after the child is ONE year old. This process allows us to monitor his reaction to a vaccine and pin point it if he has a negative reaction. The doctor here actually agreed and advised us to wait until this time for our infant to develop before injecting him with numerous vaccines. So we are doing them one at a time at the recommended age and with the ones that prevent the highest risk first. We also make sure that any shot that still contains mercury in them be avoided altogether. In modern times, mercury was finally removed as the active preservative to increase shelf life. However, that depends on your location and the quality of your source. From my research, there could still be mercury vaccines in circulation. This is why we ask first; "is there mercury in this vaccine"? And we document what he receives and the details. Now I ask you, is that irrational? Can we also be skeptical of accepted and unquestioned science especially ones that are controlled by profiting corporations? Many have been caught in history releasing harmful substances on the human population before, only to pay out the law suits as result? I see the law suit commercials on TV frequently for over 20 years. We live in an age of growing mistrust because of the mantra of big business in America. Profit is king and is the primary principle by any means necessary. For that alone, it's the investment and profiteering that can corrupt a well intended institution. For example, any doctor who finds evidence of a harmful substance and tries to reveal it, runs the risk of being outcasted by an establishment that serves the Big Pharma industry. Therefore, we must not call healthy skepticism irrational. It's quite the opposite. People like me are getting lumped into the anti-vaccine crowd because I do not blindly give my child cocktails of vaccines and before any one vaccine is necessary. The result is my child is healthy and performs perfection in all his checkups. We also follow a natural nutrition diet that excludes the harmful additives found in processed food. Who knows if that stuff can interfere with any foreign substance injected into the child. The medical community message would be far more effective to the extremists, if they can provide evidence independently and address each concern sincerely instead of condescendingly. Relying on trust for an establishment does not work anymore in the Information Age. One must execute a different strategy instead of relying on the old. Because the counterargument they will always give you is "follow the money". That's a hard one to dispute I recognize.

I already tried this by asking numerous question about his comments annoyingly. He pissed up.

Sometimes they'll just give a long-winded explanation of utter nonsense, yet they will still be assured they are making sense.

Minor quibble with the way you phrased the backfire effect. You said "by providing contradictory evidence, you actually end up strengthening their initial belief" I disagree. It might seem technical but I think it's important. When you provide contradictory evidence, THEY end up strengthening their initial belief. If I provide contradictory evidence and my opponent strengthens their initial belief, I am not accountable for that. With practice, it is possible to avoid the backfire effect in ourselves. However, your reasoning is still valid. If we want to bypass other people's cognitive biases, we need to change our tactic. Asking them to explain their point of view may work in many cases. However, I can think of many cases, particularly in religion, where it won't work. This is because many religious concepts are simpler than the reality that contradicts them.

A big problem really is that everyone is always so certain of their opinion. I as well will not back down in an argument, because of this stupid convention, that you will be seen as weak if you give in. Afterwards, it's way easier to internally debate the topic and maybe adapt my opinion. It's probably the best (as always) to not give a shit about your image and consider other people's arguments for what they are.

First youtube video that, at the same time, has a good like-Dislike ratio and the Thumbnail is not close to what the video is about.

THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR ME. I NEED HELP

Wow... Wow...

People don't take the time to understand things. Too much work. Instead they brush off the request and dig in their heels.

The fact that people want dead children more than autistic children is quite depressing.

I find myself in many debates just purely to learn because I really am not that smart, but end up being bullied and shamed for an hour for that ounce of knowledge. Do "smart" folk exist that are not jerks? Few there must be.

In other words, use the Socratic method.

good thought, a way to stop arguments. but it just proves people lack knowledge. "explain in depth why democracy is a good system"

the suggestions miss the most important step - FIRST confront yourself and your assumptions - chances are you don't know your subject as well as you think you do

Well, this assumes the other person is by default, reasonable, or capable of explaining themselves or their ideas. In the heat of an argument or otherwise. As Rozmic said, the asking questions thing isn't novel, it's used combatively and condescendingly by pretty much everyone all of the time. In a situation where someone is filling out a survey on a clipboard or on a web page, as indicated, things are pretty neutral, relatively neutral. And sure- in a survey, this may work. In meatspace or online? Unless you run with vulcans, the detailed explanation demand is liable to backfire badly. Cannot advise. Maybe in letter or something. Maybe.

This video is a year old. And I learned all this the harder way :/

Can you explain in details why chemtrails could be real?

Cliffs: First you ask them to explain their views in detail. Then you realize that they were right. Then you become irrational and tell them that they are impossible to convince. Then you find some easier target to convince of your viewpoints.

But are internet arguments worthless? I don't think so, I know a lot of people who would generally follow the advice of this video. The internet has completely changed my view of everything. There are beliefs I wouldn't even know existed unless someone had disagreed with me at one point or another. The internet practically taught me reasoning.