Most arguments are about ego, not ideas
Points and comments are a snapshot, not live.
Arguing to win rarely changes minds because most fights are about ego, not ideas.
A software engineer recounts why he stopped arguing for technical correctness. He argues correctness is not an absolute good; insisting on it manufactures a loser. Most arguments are ego battles where opinions are identities, not positions. People are emotional animals who reason backward from feelings. Correction rarely helps unless explicitly requested. Instead of debating, profit from disagreement by building what others dismiss. The only person you can change is yourself. The path to improvement is asking for feedback and setting ego aside.
What commenters are saying
Two camps emerged: those who agree with the author's premise, citing the pig-wrestling quote and Stoic philosophy, and those who argue that discussion has value even without convincing the opponent, as it can change minds in bystanders, sharpen one's own views, or provide entertainment. One commenter noted the author never considers he might be wrong. A low-ranked comment claimed the drive to argue is evolutionary biology, not philosophy, suggesting the best strategy is to pick fights you can win.