J. Allen wrote:
I do not argue to win, I argue to be right. If I'm right at the beginning of an argument, then I'm right at the end of an argument and I win. If I'm wrong at the beginning of an argument, then I realize that, purge erroneous information, I then become right, and I still win. With this way of thinking, I have the satisfaction of always winning whether I'm right or wrong.
As far as confirmation bias goes, I try my damnedest to catch myself doing it before I form opinions.
Exactly. I don't argue to win, I argue to present factual data into the conversation.
It's always frustrating arguing with someone who sees it in terms of winning. Arguing is essentially a cooperative activity if you're doing it "right"; it's about trying to arrive at either a helpful resolution to whatever discontent prompted the argument or to achieve a greater understanding of reality. A consequence of that is the ease with which you should accept good points or even justified condemnations from the other person while promoting your own position. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with someone who understands arguing in terms of the need to win, to assert themselves and gain some form of control over others, any recognition or acknowledgement of their points or insights is taken to mean that their overall position is right. If their punches are seen to land home and yours don't, they interpret that as their side of the argument having greater weight or otherwise being the stronger, when really all it means is that you're trying to work things through to truth or understanding, which involves incorporating anything that strikes you as useful or correct, while they're motivated only by the need to come out on top. In other words, an argument is only ever useful if both parties are interested in bettering themselves and their perception of reality - once you have someone whose motive is "winning" the argument the whole thing becomes rather pointless, in my opinion.