I Hate to Break It To You, but You're Not Winning That Online Argument or Debate
The deck is stacked, and it's not in your favor
Have you ever noticed that debates turn into an endless loop of frustration that don’t go anywhere? I have. As an experiment, I recently started countering comments on TikTok’s user’s posts. I’d research and counter bits of misleading information or flat-out lies, only to find that no one is interested in discourse or facts. Goal posts were moved, and even when cornered, I was told, “I have a lead that proves otherwise. I’ll show you,” only to never hear from them again.
It’s pointless. It’s futile, and here are all the reasons why.
Why online arguments don’t work
People don’t share news because it’s true , they share it because it fires them up, it makes them feel something. This is an important distinction between fake news and real news. News is meant to inform you. It is backed by facts, multiple perspectives, and accountability. Fake news or propaganda is meant to make you react and feel something. It’s meant to get you riled up quickly.
Confirmation Bias
Let’s start with confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is cherry-picking data that supports what someone already thinks or believes. Online, this cherry-picking is powerful. Social media platforms and their comment sections often repeat cherry-picked opinions. In addition, algorithms are in place to show us more of what we already like or believe to keep us engaged, creating an echo chamber that reinforces the same “facts”, ideas, and beliefs repeatedly.
Online links or facts that don’t match these views are immediately dismissed. Instead, only agreeable information is latched onto as “proof” of being right. This one-sided consumption of information means minds are made up long before the discussion even begins.
Social Media Algorithms
Algorithms. This word comes up a lot, and for good reason. Beyond our biases, by design, social media undermines a productive debate. Facebook, X, and Instagram prioritize content that engages us. Usually, posts that align with our interests or trigger raw emotions. This creates a filter bubble where we keep seeing the opinions we already agree with while opposing views rarely appear on our feeds. We are placed in a comfortable bubble that continually reinforces our beliefs, whether they are factual or not.
Over time, these echo chambers push groups further and further apart. When both sides only see their supportive evidence, they become entrenched in their positions. This polarization turns disagreements into chasms that no amount of facts or opinions can cross. People can’t see the other side’s arguments; they view the other side as clueless, stupid, ill-intentioned — even enemies. Arguments cease to take place on neutral ground. Each participant is backed by their curated universe, affirming that they’re right, making any persuasion almost impossible.
Tribalism: Group Loyalty over Truth
We are social creatures, and we often group where we belong. Political parties, religions, fandoms, etc. Online, this tribalism is magnified with an “us vs. them” mentality where loyalty is fierce.
When beliefs are intertwined with identity, rejecting a belief can feel like a betrayal to their tribe and themselves. If an argument challenges their stance, they risk alienation. For many, a challenge to their view feels like a personal attack, so they dig their heels into their position even more.
Tribalism is reinforced with echo chambers. (Again, online spaces are where we mostly interact only with like-minded peers). Surrounded by our tribe, we get validation for our views and see non-tribals as misguided or wrong. I saw a lot of this in the comment sections of TikTok. Algorithms feed into this heavily, too. Likely, you’ll never change a tribal mind because, for them, change means leaving the comfort and support of their tribe and challenging their identity, which for them, is a tall order.
Text-Based Communication Doesn’t Convey Tone and Body Language
In a face-to-face conversation, non-verbal cues are vital to getting your point across. A faint smile or a calming tone can smooth over misunderstandings. Online, that is stripped away. Text debates lack tone, nuance, facial expressions, and body language. It’s easy for a well-intended comment to come off as sarcastic or hostile. Messages are easily misinterpreted and can lead to unnecessary conflict.
It’s also easy to dehumanize someone when you’re arguing with just an avatar or username. It’s harder to feel empathy, and you don’t see the immediate emotional response to your words. This distance tends to dehumanize the person you’re arguing with, and you may be dehumanized in their eyes too, weakening any persuasive impact either of you might have.
The Perfect Storm and Why It Matters
It’s not simply that “people are dumb” or “stubborn” . Biases and social dynamics are at play, from confirmation bias and algorithms to tribal identity protection. These all create a perfect storm that shields us from opposing views and constructive criticism. This extreme polarization is hurting not only society as a whole but us as individuals. The days of constructive discourse are falling by the wayside, and that’s a tragedy.
So how do we fix it? We need to be more patient and strategic with our approach. Shouting matches and name-calling in the comment sections are not going to change minds. Instead — as cheesy as it sounds — we need to be empathetic and avoid hostility. Learn to acknowledge valid points, ask questions, and show patience. All these pave the way for a more open-minded dialogue. And if all else fails, step away. Not every battle needs a fight, especially when the terrain (a mountain of impersonal, bias-filled social platforms) is impossible to cross. We should strive for a true meeting of minds, and by understanding some of the psychology behind the current state of debate, we can choose our battles more effectively and engage in ways that promote mutual understanding and not pointless fighting.
I hate paywalls as much as you do. Nothing kills curiosity faster than a great headline you can’t read. I understand content creators need to make a living, but I want to do things differently. For now, The Devil’s Playbook will stay completely free—no filters, no locked articles—because reaching people matters more than gating content.
If you enjoy my work and want to support it, consider buying me a coffee or subscribing using the button below. Every bit helps keep this going. Thanks for reading! ☕️
🔍 Further reading:
Psychology Today — The Dunning-Kruger Effect Explained
Overview of how overconfidence in knowledge affects decision-making.
American Psychological Association (APA) — The Power of Group Identity
Covers Social Identity Theory and how tribalism affects cognition and behavior.
Britannica — Confirmation Bias
An encyclopedia definition and overview of confirmation bias
MIT — Who Gets Caught in Online Echo Chambers?
Online personalization algorithms are leading many content viewers to narrower choices.