I just had an argument. I love those. It was good practice articulating one of my beliefs. The belief is 100% objectively correct obviously since it's coming from me, but I wasn't articulating it very well. Getting to go through it with another person helped me to make my explanation more concrete I think. I got to borrow their brain and their perspective a bit, and they insisted on seeing the world in one particular way. I didn't have a preference, but by trying to get my beliefs to map their way into their worldview, it helped me to articulate myself... less like a robot let's say. You should have seen our conversation. They insisted on their particular worldview, and then when I pointed out the contradiction in their worldview, they decided the real problem was with the word they used. Lesser fools than myself would have absolutely flipped out and pissed their pants at spotting a mistake like that, but I am gracious. Why should I be satisfied with a shallow semantic victory? Are my skills so lacking that I cannot argue unless all the words for our conversation are exactly right? No, I got them to rephrase their statement with different verbage, and pointed out the contradiction there too! And then we I did it yet again! I can change semantics all day! I don't care what meanings you want to ascribe to your speech so long as you will stand by what you mean. Then when someone is most vulnerable, you exploit them by providing them with a lifeline. A verbage that works within their worldview, and and explanation that works within their verbage. And then you hope and pray that your belief can stand up to nasty surprises and you aren't just shoveling your dogshit onto the plate of someone with nothing better to eat. Sorry folks, changing a person's mind really is the least consequential part of a debate, no matter how conclusive it may feel.