You Will Never Win an Argument On the Internet — Here’s Why
The Internet promised us a renaissance of discourse. Armed with instant access to all human knowledge and the ability to connect with brilliant minds worldwide, we imagined our online debates would elevate human understanding to unprecedented heights.
But two decades later, we scroll through our choice of social poison, watching people with PhDs argue like kindergarteners with a rogues gallery of anime avatars about whether water is wet / turning frogs gay.
We’re a fucking mess.
And sooner or later, you’ve got to ask yourself:
What the hell happened?
Conventional wisdom says we still need more good-faith discussion. More steel-manning of opposing views. More rational discourse. But watching the daily devolution of online debates tells me a darker truth: the very act of arguing on the Internet is making us collectively dumber.
This sounds counterintuitive. Debate sharpens the mind, right? Exposure to different viewpoints broadens our perspective. That’s what Socrates taught us, what our schools drill into us, what every “how to think better” course preaches. But something fundamental has been broken in discourse, and we need to understand why before it breaks us too.
The Attention Casino
Social media platforms operate like casinos — they’re engineered to maximize “engagement” through carefully calibrated reward schedules. But instead of pulling slot machine levers, we’re pulling the debate lever over and over, chasing the dopamine hit of being right on the Internet.
And the house always fucking wins. Every platform’s algorithm rewards conflict over clarity, dunks over discourse, and pithy dismissals over patient exploration of ideas. A thoughtful thread exploring the nuances of monetary policy might get a few polite likes. A savage quote-tweet demolishing a bad take? That’s engagement gold.
We’ve created a system where being wrong is algorithmically amplified (because it draws corrective responses) while being right is algorithmically ignored (because “good point, I agree” doesn’t drive engagement). The result? Our feeds fill with increasingly bad takes begging to be debunked, while genuine insight drowns in an ocean of dunks.
The Psychology of Doubling Down
Remember the last time you changed your mind because of a Twitter argument?
Neither do I.
And the reason isn’t just general stubborn bloody-mindedness. When we argue online, we trigger a perfect storm of psychological factors that make genuine mind-changing nearly impossible:
- The Audience Effect — We’re not arguing with our opponent; we’re performing for the audience. Changing our minds means losing face in front of the crowd.
- The Written Record — Unlike verbal debates that fade from memory, online arguments create permanent records. Admitting we’re wrong means leaving evidence of our mistakes forever.
- The Identity Trap — The longer we argue a position, the more it becomes part of our identity. Changing our minds starts to feel like betraying ourselves.
- The Sunk Cost Fallacy — Yep, that old chestnut. After investing hours crafting arguments and collecting sources, abandoning our position feels like wasting all that effort.
The result? We don’t engage in debates to learn — we engage to win. And when winning becomes the goal, we automatically activate the mental machinery of rationalization rather than rational thinking.
The Dunning-Kruger Death Spiral
The more we engage in online debates, the more confident we become in our knowledge while actually understanding less. Call it the Dunning-Kruger Death Spiral.
It works like this: We rarely engage with the strongest version of opposing views when we argue online. Instead, we battle against simplified, often straw-manned versions that are easier to defeat. Each “victory” reinforces our confidence while degrading our ability to grapple with real complexity.
Think about how we prepare for online debates. We don’t deeply read opposing views — we skim for weak points to attack. We don’t steelman opposing arguments — we collect gotcha counterexamples. We don’t explore nuance — we build arsenals of snappy comebacks.
These habits actively make us worse at understanding complex issues. We train ourselves to look for easy dunks instead of hard truths. We optimize for rhetorical effectiveness over actual understanding. We become increasingly confident while growing increasingly wrong.
The Platform Prison
“What if we just try harder to have good faith discussions? What if we consciously avoid these pitfalls?”
Unfortunately, that’s not an option, and it misunderstands how thoroughly platform incentives shape discourse. Even if you enter a discussion with pure intentions, you’re still playing in a casino designed to maximize conflict.
Think about:
- Character limits force complex ideas into oversimplified snippets
- Threading mechanisms make it easy to miss context and talk past each other
- Like/retweet mechanics reward zingers over nuance
- Notification systems interrupt deep thought with constant micro-distractions
- Algorithmic amplification ensures the most inflammatory takes rise to the top
You can’t fix a systemically broken system through individual virtue. It’s like trying to play chess while someone keeps randomizing the board positions — the game itself has been fundamentally broken.
What’s the solution? Stop the discourse entirely?
Not exactly. But we need to radically shift how we engage with ideas online.
Here’s what works, in my experience:
- Deep Reading — Instead of arguing about books, read them. Instead of debating summaries, engage with primary sources. Build genuine understanding before entering discussions.
- Writing to Think — Use writing to explore ideas, not win arguments. Write essays, not tweets. Focus on developing your thoughts rather than defeating others’.
- Controlled Environments — Save serious discussions for spaces designed for learning rather than engagement. Book clubs, study groups, and moderated forums can create conditions for genuine discourse.
- Async Over Real-Time — Real-time debate optimizes for quick responses over deep thought. Async discussions allow time for reflection and reduce performative pressure.
Learning happens in environments optimized for understanding, not winning.
The moment a space optimizes for conflict over clarity, real learning becomes nearly impossible.
Most online debate is actively harmful to our thinking. Every hour spent arguing on Twitter is an hour we could have spent reading a book, writing an essay, or having a genuine discussion in a better environment. Fuck it; even watching paint dry would have been a more productive/conducive enterprise.
Because the cost isn’t just wasted time; it’s the slow degradation of our ability to think clearly about complex issues. It’s the replacement of nuanced understanding with rhetorical party tricks. It’s the confusion of winning arguments with finding the truth.
It’s a system that makes us feel smarter while making us dumber. A system that rewards the appearance of knowledge over actual understanding. A system that turns every discussion into a battle and every participant into a soldier.
The solution isn’t better-arguing techniques or more good faith efforts. The solution is to escape. Read more fucking books. Write more fucking essays. Find better spaces for genuine discussion. Treat social media as entertainment rather than education.
Because, in the end, you will never win an argument online. The game itself is rigged. The only winning move is not to play.
Coda: A Personal Note
I write this as someone who spent years engaging in online debates. I have the screenshots of “victories” to prove it. I can craft the perfect quote tweet, deploy the devastating counterexample, and unleash the clever analogy that leaves opponents speechless.
And I’m dumber for all of it. Not irrevocably so, but noticeably so.
It got me 3/4 of the way to being a total idiot.
Every hour I spent “winning” debates was an hour I could have spent learning. Drawing. Listening to Husker Dü. Every clever comeback I crafted was mental energy I could have used to understand complex issues more deeply. Every “victory” reinforced habits that made me worse at finding the truth.
The Internet promised us a marketplace of ideas. Instead, we built a gladiatorial arena where ideas go to die — time to find better places to think.
And for anyone interested — water isn’t turning frogs gay. All frogs are gay.
I’m JA Westenberg, the voice behind Westenberg. I’m a writer, technologist, and perpetual skeptic.
I write a 2x weekly email: Think sharper in 7 minutes a week.
