> you can never win an argument online

This is true online and it's true in person. As you said even if you "win" by getting the other person to concede, the net result is often that they are more walled into their position than before.

I've come to believe the real issue is that you should not be trying to "win" a discussion in the first place.

Rather, you should assume (or at the very least pretend) for the moment that their position is justified and they are "right". Under that presumption, ask questions and allow them to elaborate on their position. In short, instead of talking, listen without judging until you really, truly understand and have acknowledged and accepted their position.

At that point you have a tool very few people ever acquire in a discussion. You have the ability to frame your argument in their terms.

Now, that doesn't mean you will convince them you are right and they are wrong, but it does mean they are going to be far more likely to listen to you and consider what you've said more fairly than if you had simply bombarded them with facts and figures, i.e. "logic".

Or, in other words, "have conversations, not debates". It's surprising how many otherwise smart people don't realise that only a very, very small minority actually enjoys debating.

> What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online.

Nonsense. It may be difficult to win such an argument, but it's not impossible. I've seen people being convinced online, and I've managed to convince people of opposing views myself on occasion.

It would seem that your position is impossible to argue. But what about the times when two people do come to an agreement?

I will agree you are right in many cases, but "never" is a strong word.

Their rule tells them not to debate it with you, though.

We wouldn't have had much of a debate anyway. People here on HN are pretty reasonable and we agreed save a choice of one word.