You don't debate for the sake of the person you're debating with, you debate for the sake of everyone reading/watching it who hasn't formed an opinion yet
People's lizard brains will tend to favor the person on the right. Because their arguments are simple, spoken with confidence and often louder. Our primitive instincts interpret that as 'correct' because it comes off as strong. The person on the left looks weak and full of excuses.
People aren't biologically capable of handling modern propaganda well.
this is a law in the scientific sense, where its function is to describe a phenomenon that occurs in nature (or in society), not as in an authority is decreeing it so
The only reason I argue on the internet (when I can be bothered) is so that people reading the thread will that an opposing opinion exists, not because I hope to convince the person I'm arguing with.
That also means that when the other person starts resorting to personal attacks you can point it out and let that discussion go, as they're not going to be convincing anybody who is reading and thinking once have, by making it personal and insulting others, implicitly admitted that they don't have rational arguments backing up their strongly held opinion.
I do it in order to understand my own viewpoint more clearly. It is a lot easier to figure out what you believe when faced with things you do not believe.
They definitely can be won and I won’t be convinced otherwise! What makes you think they can’t be won man???? Cite your sources! I heard from my brothers dog walker that her sisters father in laws cousin wins them all the time. OWNED!!!
They did win. It's tautological. They won because they think they won. If they loose they shift the goal posts so they win. You have to bring your arguments to them and they decide if they are valid. And when they get into a corner and can't possibly win they win the only way possible: by making sure that when they lose, you lose more.
Fascism is where it leads. If a fascist doesn't like what you are saying, they'll just shoot you and walk away knowing they have won. That's the natural extension of this dynamic.
Had this kind of shit happen, had 20 links backing up my debunk, he didn't have one... he claimed it was some conspiracy
I said "Okay, either it's a grand conspiracy that all 20 of these competing news sites are working together, or Trump really did save those orphans from a church fire set by communists. Which is it?"
They are only really funny when there is some truth to them so those seeing them find the humor when they agree, leaving it unchallenged leaves individuals to believe the "truth" that exists within the meme. Some people just don't like letting propaganda sit unchallenged.
All that said, yeah getting your "facts" from a meme is pretty dumb.