One option is to debate empirical questions with verifiable answers. Stuff like "government sucks yo" is easily rebutted by "government rules yo".

I think there is value in it. The relative prominence of ideas changes in society over time, largely through discussion (whether around the dinner table, or reading columnist so and so). Contributing to this discussion makes a marginal change in the prominence of these ideas. I think the thing is that in an adversarial situation with two people of widely differing views, it is unlikely to change their minds. But what does happen is people refine their positions, moving one way or the other, as does the audience, etc. THere is value.

BTW, if you can't argue for libertarianism with everyone in the room clearly understanding you are doing this from a position of empathy for others, you need to do some more reading until you can.

I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said, but I think it is pretty much a waste of time. I have a handful of friends that are very closed-minded and set in their ways in politics and no amount of reasonable arguments or attempts to find common ground will get you anywhere. With these people (they are essential irl trolls), I generally don't bring up anything political, and if they do, I try to change the subject.

With more open-minded people, it can be nice to have an intelligent political discussion. If your goal is to change someone's mind though, you're still probably wasting your time. It can be nice to have some intelligent discussion and hear some different viewpoints though.

I enjoy lurking threads in this forum because of the coherent points and openness to new ideas that many posters show. That's the polar opposite of 90% of irl political conversations.

I'm generally conservative/libertarian but I'm also open to new ideas. I find left-learning people to be more open to reasonable political discussion than right-leaning people. I would guess because left-leaning people truly do want to solve problems; they just (mistakenly imo) usually think the government should be the one to do it.

exactly. people care more about being right than the truth of things.

also, depending on who you're talking to, the straw man is strong in those you contradict

it can be alright if talking to open minded people (like 20% of the population) but unless you really really know your stuff and know all the counterpoints its pretty difficult to have enough substance to change anyone's mind. Its also easy to lie or just be wrong about some random study someone misheard and its kind of difficult to counter any argument you haven't heard of without the internet for the facts at hand. I enjoy reading this forum but clearly there are is alot of bs randomly spun in but arguing on the internet about politics is a far far superior option than any other if you are actually open minded and want to understand an issue well. You have access to facts and fact checking at your fingertips as well as the minds of a bunch of other people, many of whom are much smarter than you, and many of whom with different life experiences and biases. There is no better medium for a politics discussion, and even with that being the case it still turns into a NOU contest quite a bit. Still superior to face to face verbal arguments though with people who may or may not have any idea what they are talking about

I have found that when people change their minds after a discussion its rarely actually in the discussion and more afterwards in reflection about the points and counterpoints.
But there's no point in having the same discussion over and over again with the same information. Its exaserbating, but i've been pulled into those over and over again

No, people care more about winning the argument than being right.

I kinda disagree with this. There's a small group of people who turn any discussion into an argument, and a group of people within this group into about winning the argument- and these people are given alot more time because they never shut the **** up.

I am often one of these people and it pisses me right the **** off

Stop being a crazy right wing nut, start being a freindly neighbourhood communist instead.

Stop ****ting on the little people yo.

This.

Many don't want to entertain the possibility that their whole belief system is off, or flat out wrong. Whether it's ego or fear or a combination of the 2 is subjective. It can be quite a psychological step to take in admitting something they've championed over and over might be wrong as it makes their worlds less comfortable and less secure. Denial can be a defense mechanism for security. Understanding their potential insecurity is the pathway to influencing them.

b

Nobody on this board has, but I am open to the possibility. My position on some issues has evolved greatly over the years as a result of political dialogue and keeping an open mind, though (corporate taxation and gun control are two big ones which come to mind).

Keeping an open mind does not necessarily mean changing one's mind.

This this this

When I started posting here I was left of left. I am not anymore. More libertarian than anything, although I hate that label, and I have no desire to read Mises, Rothbard, et al. In fact, the one Rothbard book I read was horrible. Even when I wanted to agree with him, I scratched my head at all the bad arguments, appeals to emotion, and uncited assertions.

My experience with most people, though, is that their political opinions essentially become a part of their identity, so disagreeing with them is taken personally, which forces them to dig in deeper.

Another idea: at the start of each debate, each person outlines what it would take for them to change their mind. If it's "nothing" or "[almost impossible conditions]", then you're not going to progress anywhere. It still doesn't stop people from bloviating that you didn't really meet their conditions, but it's a start.

Could you give an example what those reasons could be?

Tell them they're not as egalitarian as they probably think they are. Why should a few people up top dictate how much everyone should redistribute?

Libertarians wouldn't have a problem with i.e. a peer-to-peer rating system that gives people incentive to redistribute.

The people who want to kill and steal are the crazy and heartless ones. Probably better to ignore them imo. Or at least detach yourself from caring what they think.