I feel I’ve won after the other person starts making personal attacks.
It’s like they have ran out of things to support their position, so they simply refrain to using insults. But I keep on topic and then they get mad which leads to more personal insults, then they refuse to listen to me or walk away.
When do you all feel you have “won” an argument?
A debate is like a fencing match. You agree to stay within certain boundaries, to use certain types of blades, not to try to impale your opponent, and to back off when they ask for a time out. You score points by thrusting with logical arguments, and your opponent counters. At the ‘end’ the person with the most points wins. If your opponent brings out the ad-hominems, that is the equivalent of dropping their sword and bashing you over the head with a barstool. BUT, just because they are disqualified does not mean you ‘won’, unless you can counter their points before the barstool came out.
IMHO, of course.
I don’t know, I’m married. I’ve never won an argument. 
Seriously, it depends on what you mean by an argument. In a “personal argument” (wife doesn’t think I do enough around the house, etc.), I feel I’ve “won” when all the issues have been addressed and resolved.
In a “debate argument” (GWB is the geatest/worst president ever, etc.), I think I’ve won when the other person agrees with my opinion, or at least agree that my points are valid. (Of course, that could be why I usually don’t post in GD)
I know I’ve won when I have my opponent wriggling in the crushing grip of reason.
I consider it a victory if I can get the other person to say, “Well, you’ve given me a lot to think about.”
It is impossible to win an argument with a person if, depite a semi-trailer full of evidence, they refuse to change their mind. (And there are far too many people out there who won’t budge an inch no matter what you say, or prove, or do.) At this point, write them off as an idiot-by-choice, and back slowly away. All you will do is give yourself a headache, and make them feel smugly proud that their stubborness has withstood your onslaughts of reason. Just let it go, because it’s an unwinnable battle.
There must also be sufficient self-examination, else you don’t know who’s the real idiot-by-choice.
I posted this on another thread.
How do you know you have won an argument on SDMB?
Your opponent:
So far I am undefeated on SDMB.
When I have actually learned something.
When my opponent looks at me and says “Snopes? What’s that?”
Or when I can point at them and say “Ha! Can’t answer that one, can ya, smart guy? Neener!”
Whichever comes first. 
Oh, I agree. There is not one of my beliefs which could not be changed by reasonable evidence. Once or twice on this board, I’ve started in a debate with a position and others have changed my mind by logic, reasoning and giving me evidence that proves otherwise. I’d consider anything else to be close-minded and stubborn, and I’d hate to be that way.
If this is really winning, then I have won every debate I entered.
Seriously you have an excellent point. Especially if your opponents go to the pit. Then you know you have won for sure.
Love
Leroy
Unfortunately, so many of the people who argue online are the cyber equivalents of the Black Knight from Monty Python. “I’ve delivered seven scholarly studies that discredit your position, shown that you are knowling using fraudulent information, and proven that you are mistaken on all of the key supporting data to your thesis.”
It’s a flesh wound! Proves nothing…
Of course the truest line I’ve ever read about chat-rooms and message boards (and allow me to here ad to forestall spamming that I have “special” relatives and friends of my own that I love dearly) is this:
Debating online is like running in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you’re still retarded.
No. That’s not it. Self-examination. What happens when someone provides logic that you consider illogical or reason that you consider far-fetched or evidence that to you isn’t evidence ?
The conspiracy theorists sure win alot of arguments.
No you’re not:D
I know I’ve won when I feel all tingly. Electricity zaps around the room and my sword drops from my hand. I’m raised 10 feet into the air and I scream. A beautiful woman comes rushing over to see if I’m okay. We have great sex, but she dies.
Happens all the time.
When they admit that I’m right, I feel pretty safe that I’ve won.
To me the surest sign that I’ve won in GD is when the false attributions start. Once an opponent realizes they’re losing on one track they often try to switch and start beating on arguments that I haven’t made.
I notice that this happens a lot in GD. Often the sidetracking works and a person ends up defending an argumetn that they haven’t made. Once the strawmen start I consider it pretty much over whether I’m debating or just watching.
When I have crushed my enemies, seen them driven before me and their women start making personal, ad hominem attacks.
There’s a big difference between saying, “This is true because I feel it is so,” and “I can prove this is true, and here are a few reliable sites.” Logic must be based on the examination of facts, not on antecdotes, or feelings.
If a person is able to defend their position by information which is supported by the scientific community, I will give more weight to it than “evidence” from a religious source, or a theory which has no peer credibility. Evidence to prove or disprove a theory must come from a reliable source, stand up to reasonable scrutiny, and make logical sense.
By logic, I mean taking what I know from the fields of sociology, history, science, archaeology and biology, and comparing the proposed theory to the facts I have gleaned from these sources. If something is seriously awry, then I will not accept it without deeply convincing evidence.
Just as an example: to me, the existance of black holes seem “far fetched,” simply because I am not sufficiently educated in astronomy. However, someone could lead me to information from respected astronomers and scientists which would explain them to me in excrutiating detail. They could show me examples of the effects of gravitational pull on surrounding astral bodies. Thus, I could weigh the evidence presented and come to accept their existance.
As a comparison, someone could claim that angels definately exist, and post links to Christian websites which list encounters with angels. Considering that the site most likely has an agenda (conversion, or selling their book on angels) I would not give the evidence the same weight as I would the scientists in the above example. Also, the only evidence would be antecdotal stories from people whom I do not know, and thus cannot accurately judge their credibility.
You must also consider the bias of the source. For example, I would put more trust in the CDC statistics on abortion than I would from a Right To Life site. Nor would I accept information on the Holocaust from a Neo-Nazi source, or evolutionary theory from a Creationist.
So, when I see a theory presented and defended, I ask myself if it stands up to scrutiny from a scientific/sociological/historical standpoint? Is the logic used circular in nature? Is the evidence reliable, from a respected, non-biased source? Are both the evidence for and against the theory examined evenly? Would it stand up in a court of law, or would it be rejected as hearsay, or speculation without basis?
But that’s just me. Others may have more stict or lax standards of what constitutes evidence. Some may accept evidence which only supports what they believe. But personally, I have always operated on the basis of “Know thine enemy.” I want to know what supports “the other side’s” convictions before I dismiss them out of hand. Only by studying an issue with an open mind can you see both sides, and then come to a reasoned, informed decision. In this way, I am prepared to defend my beliefs, because I already know what flaws the other side sees in them and have resolved them in my mind. But again, no belief I have is so deeply rooted that I could not be dissuaded by reliable evidence.
When it’s just him and me and there is no third party to be persuaded, I want to see my adversary stagger from the room clutching at the furniture and bleeding from the ears. That doesn’t happen very often.
Lissa
I think we’re talking about different things here…
That’s my point. You admit you aren’t sufficiently educated, yet you say black holes are “far-fetched”. That’s a negative bias towards black-hole theory. Shouldn’t you be neutral till you have sufficient information ?
The key word I debate here is reliable. How often do you re-evaluate what the standards for reliability are ?