You just can't make the argument that it is pointless to waste one's time trying to change someone's mind and later claim that you were never trying to change his mind in the first place!
There is a difference between "never" and "rarely".
The getting under a person's skin was my main priority. (When I was a young adult, I found that it was relatively easy to get under the skin of many of my peers).
The other person changing their mind was just a "bonus" if it ever happened, and largely secondary (or even tertiary). Past cases I can recall where the other person indeed changed their mind due to my argument, typically involved showing that there were technical problems in the other person's argument, which were resolved through a mathematical calculation (or proof) I did. This sort of change of mind, happened a lot more frequently when I was younger.
As we got older, I've found that even rigorous mathematical arguments and/or precise experimental data, will not change the other person's mind as easily. This "rising of the bar" for evidence, seems to make it harder to get under the other person's skin and harder to get them to change their mind.
For many people I've known for decades, I've found that it gets harder to get under someone's skin as they got older. (Even people I knew who were hotheads with short fuses when they were younger). As I got older, I've found that attempting to get under somebody's skin has been resembling more and more like an exercise in futility too. (Not just changing other people's minds).