The Futility of Arguing with the Inflexible

In today's world, engaging in dialogue is becoming a true art, especially when you encounter people stubbornly fixated on their dogmatic views. These individuals, convinced of the absolute correctness of their ideas, are unwilling to entertain alternative opinions, and any attempts at rational discussion end up as a waste of time. Various examples vividly demonstrate how pride and resistance to criticism render debates meaningless. Genuine dialogue, therefore, occurs only when both sides are open to exchanging ideas and willing to listen to each other's arguments. Naturally, it is important to distinguish between a substantial conversation and a fruitless argument so that the energy expended contributes to building mutual understanding rather than to heated debates where victory is determined not by logic, but by obstinacy.

Which types of people is it truly pointless to argue with, and why does this occur? The answer lies in the idea that it makes no sense to engage in a debate with individuals who are characterized by dogmatism, overconfidence in the infallibility of their judgment, and intolerance toward other viewpoints. These people are not open to listening to arguments because they are already convinced of the correctness of their own position.

For instance, one excerpt in the text (source: link ) states:
"The Judge, in an even more striking manner than the Calculator, is obsessed with overconfidence in the infallibility of all his judgments, pride, and intolerance."
This indicates that arguing with people who regard their own judgment as absolute truth often proves fruitless, as they are not inclined to accept alternative opinions.

Similarly, another text (source: link ) highlights that when fundamentally different ideas encounter conventional ones, it is better to show tolerance, even if it is challenging. In such situations, arguing becomes useless, as the interlocutor's deeply entrenched beliefs simply cannot be changed by rational arguments.

Thus, engaging in debate only makes sense in a dialogue where both parties are willing to consider alternative viewpoints. Conversely, when a person shuts themselves off from arguments, stubbornly clings to their position, and rejects any criticism, debates turn into a futile exercise that neither fosters mutual understanding nor changes attitudes.

Supporting citation(s):
"The Judge, in an even more striking manner than the Calculator, is obsessed with overconfidence in the infallibility of all his judgments, pride, and intolerance." (source: link )
"If you come across types of Christianity that are different, I urge you to be tolerant, even though it is difficult. Arguing is pointless." (source: link )