As many of you are aware and have experienced, when two people argue (whether online or in real life), they do so not because they want to spread the truth, but so that they can seem smart and superior. If presented with a contradictory piece of evidence, immediately the game turns into one of defense, as if their personal intelligence has been insulted and must be upheld.

I don't see why it should be a big deal for someone to be wrong. The basic premise of fallibilism is that all our knowledge is flawed and will be inevitably corrected by a slightly better version in the future. To follow any single idea or perspective through the extremes is inherently going to end up someplace undesirable, such as the utopic idea of democracy (as exemplified in California's resulting debt from direct democracy) or equality (as imagined by the Harrison Bergeron story where people artificially diminish the talents of anyone extraordinary so that everyone is equal). That is precisely the path which leads to a dystopia, because there is never one ideology without contradictions nor counterexamples.

There has been many world-views I had in the past that is completely different from what I believe today, such so that I might have hated the type of person I was five years ago, but there is neither dissapointment nor regret in the way I developed. What would be inexcusable is the thought that what we currently believe will hold true forever. I love that moment when someone brings up a point so strong that my entire stance changes and I could repeat that same point to someone else I meet talking about the same thing, and do that until I find another strong point which changes my mind but makes my understanding that much stronger. Eventually your points become so strong that it'll become extremely rare anyone will change your mind again.

This rant is partially inspired after watching so many political debates where we value consistency in our leaders not because they are right but for the sake of consistency. I'm not advocating for flip flops here, who usually do it not for the advancement of perception but to win support. Which is why I find it amazing when moments like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDBTNxs2Ywo occur. I think the idea that it's wrong to be wrong is the core problem disrupting any meaningful national dialogue right now. It also permeates into the individual level where people simply hates others for their beliefs instead of trying to understand it or trying to change their minds. And I don't mean that everybody needs to go about their life with an agnostic paralysis where because they cannot be certain, they should never assert. I just wish people would declare their opinion with confidence but also with a pretense that they might be wrong.

TL;DR: It takes a man to admit they're wrong and change their minds.

Anyway, that's my rant. Maybe one of you disagrees with what I say and have a stronger point. Or maybe I'm just preaching to the choir since we're all smarter than that.

The thing is, most people are at least somewhat egotistical and vain, so being wrong is seen as embarassing adn demeaning to them, hence the need to argue more, and I fully admit to being guilty of this at times. It's just that sometimes, people need a slice of humble pie

I think you're wrong.

Well, I think that if someone believe in something very strongly, they should though, at least listen and analyze the other people's opinion on that meter. If you simple don't agree with that person i guess trying to explain your own point of view should be also valid and if no agreement were reached then for the sake of co-existing there is only acceptance, right? The thought of Being right or wrong depends so much in each person and the argument. Generalizing that is too complicated,. I'm a person that follows a great deal of common sense and i don't argue with what i know nothing about, but will always try to have a productive argument with someone with equal knowledge. Refusing to accept other's people knowledge is like refusing to keep learning, and i believe there is no limit for learning.... T.T well i'm not sure what i'm saying myself anyways LOL wtv xD

Wow. You just put an entirely new twist on politics that I'd never even thought of before. Not once, in the dozens of newspaper and magazine articles I've read covering the 2012 election, have I seen this perspective. I'd always just taken for granted that inconsistency was bad in itself. But you're right: the ability to morph our beliefs and opinions according to the evidence we're presented, without regard to existing prejudices, is a fantastic trait to have (it's the central dogma of science, too, which does a pretty good job of uncovering truth).

And no, you're not preaching to the choir. Rarely do arguments on this forum end with one party admitting defeat. In fact, Plato and Socrates began the tradition of working with their partners (not "opponents") to uncover a truth by building on each other's thoughts.

Not to derail here but the issue of consistency also reminds me of what's going on in the Abortion thread. Some of the libertarian religionists there won't mind taking the most absurd or outrageous positions (like making the stupid analogy of a fetus being a parasite) so as they see it advancing their goal of maintaining internal consistency. I find that equally problematic. Also, all of you are wrong.

I definitely agree. As far as I'm concerning, losing is the only personally beneficial outcome to an argument - if you win, all you do is further cement your views, which, if anything, can make you more dogmatic and less open to reason.

I think it reflects itself quite clearly when you compare partisan governments, such as the USA, to those in countries such as Germany where consensus is the norm, in that governments with cooperative political systems tend to achieve far more and, on the whole, have far more effective policies at achieving the best outcomes. Sticking to your guns no matter what helps no-one - not even you.

I think the majority of arguments revolve around opinion rather than fact anyway. But I agree if you are presented with facts which contradict your viewpoint then you should concede.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Indeed, 'flip-flopping' has been portrayed as being disloyal to one's beliefs, and it many/some cases it is (in such cases, in order to win over votes) However, I think that if a politician, after being confronted in a debate, or in a news article, with a certain fact, viewpoint, or argument that persuades him or her to change their stance, and then they stick by their new viewpoint of what is better for the public or the country, then that should be applauded. That is, in a way, showing more integrity than 'sticking to one's guns' no matter what, which is in most other fields ridiculed as dogma.