Arguing with fanatics: do facts win, or is it just an illusion of victory?

Arguing with fanatics: the illusion behind the silent opponent

Anyone who has ever tried to argue with a fanatic knows the pattern: they start with insults and half a dozen dogmas, but when hit with a barrage of data and evidence, they get frustrated, hurl an expletive and leave. Or so the person firing the barrage believes. The reality is more nuanced.

The myth of "they've run out of arguments"
One comment in the discussion points out that an opponent's silence doesn't prove they've lost. They may be exhausted, out of time, or have concluded that the exchange is just repeating positions. There is also the "data avalanche" effect: answering every claim with twenty points looks like rigor, but it's a tactic that makes a full rebuttal impossible. If the other person responds to two out of twenty, they're accused of ignoring the rest, even if those two are the only relevant ones.

Is arguing with a fanatic worth anything?
Some argue it's pointless: a fanatic won't abandon their position even in the face of contradicting evidence. The hard-vote analogy applies: it makes no difference to show the leader doing something reprehensible at a rally; the trinc will justify it or deny it. Against this view, others argue that public debate has value even if it doesn't convert your interlocutor, because the audience watching may change their minds.

Conclusion: while some maintain that overwhelming someone with data is the way to silence an adversary, others remind us that falling silent is not the same as surrendering. The debate about debating remains unresolved: how effective data really is at breaking down fanaticism is still an open question.