I avoid them entirely.

Every argument for any point of view on any subject is out there. People can either be intellectually honest and seek out all of the viewpoints, or do what most people do and adopt the one they want to be true and then ensconce themselves into feedback loops in social media, blogs, and other media, where group agreement and constant reinforcement and likes and upvotes continue to assure the person that the thing they want to be true really is.

On my old reddit account, I stopped in mid-rant, about 8000 characters into a diatribe and asked, "Why am I doing this? Is there literally any piece of evidence or any point I can make to persuade the other person?" More to the point: is anything I am saying not easily googleable? Has it not been said better by someone else?

Listening to what people say on any issue tends to illustrate that they haven't even made a cursory attempt to understand the opposing point of view before talking or typing (I notice this, especially, when people who are on my side on an issue clearly don't understand anything about the opposition -- or more specifically, haven't expended any effort to do so.)

That being the case, what chance do I have? Most debates I've observed or participated in are entered into dishonestly. Sometimes I will pop into a thread of really angry people screaming at each other over an issue I don't care about and observe what a ridiculous spectacle it is ("Drama" is simply emotional entanglements the observer doesn't care about or cannot understand.) Well, people not interested in what moves me probably think the same when they watch me debating with someone about something I care about.

I'm not apathetic. That's not it at all. Two PhD candidates from opposing political philosophy schools argue for an hour over who should feed the starving man, and who is responsible for his predicament, and who ought to be blamed?

Down the street, Joe Schmoe with nothing more than a high school education slaps together a sandwich in 2 minutes and hands it to the starving man.

Who has changed the world more significantly?

Recently, I've thought about all of the time I've wasted over the years. I've thought about all of the good will I've burned with people over arguments and disagreements (and how much they've burned with me.) How many arguments don't get personal? A few. Not many.

These are so rare, that all you need to do is get into a bitter argument on reddit, and then apologize for your tone and wish your opponent happiness, and watch the upvotes pile on. People forget they're hungry for this, and when it happens, it refreshes everyone.

The thing I ask myself is: "Of what consequence is it to me whether this person agrees with me or not?" You can argue "water is wet" incessantly with someone who insists it is dry, but the nature of water itself does not change. Water, nonetheless, remains wet no matter what anyone says about it.

It is almost like magical thinking: my position becomes more "real" the more people I can persuade of it. The more plaudits and accolades and approval I get for a point of view, the more the nature of reality changes. This does not square with what I know of metaphysics. A bus careening toward me in the middle of the street will smoosh me whether or not I can convince everyone (including myself) that the bus doesn't exist, or whether I am alone in that dubious point of view.

What really seems to persuade people is living by example; living what you preach and not being a jerk about it.

The smartest trolls on the Internet know the following things:

• Most people kid themselves when they describe themselves as logical thinkers. With the exception of a few academic types really interested in the science of rhetoric and logic itself, the louder someone insists their point of view is "logical" and everyone else's is "illogical", the more they're overcompensating; it is like a poker "tell" that the exasperated individual desperately needs his point of view to be "true" and he is insecure about it. It's not even about the issue so much as the self-image of the individual as the "logical" one in a world of madness, superstition, and irrationality. When people assert everyone is stupid, or deluded, or insane, or a sheep, that says more about the person making the assertion than it does everyone else.

• Most people will make extra effort to side with whatever side has the more socially acceptable opinion. Most people will, furthermore, align themselves with charismatic people (or people with social currency) -- even if they're wrong, so...

• What you do as a troll is get a person expressing the opposing opinion to be loud, strident, obnoxious, and hopefully...uncool.

There is a Church of the Subgenius bumper sticker: "Relax in the safety of your own delusions..."

While the famous Desiderata opens:

"Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence..."

There are probably specific and limited circumstances in which debate and argument can serve a positive and measurable result. The wisdom is knowing which those are. And they are, at least in my experience, quite rare, and require participants with extraordinary mental discipline.

The next time you're tempted to enter into an argument - especially something that you really care about, if you can manage it, ask yourself:

• Why am I arguing? I care about this issue, but why am I expending effort to change this person's mind? Is it about the issue, the people impacted by the issue, or is it about me - some kind of psychological need I have to assert my version of reality? Am I threatened by this opposing opinion? Why does it concern me at all that this person sees things differently?

• Can this person's mind be changed? Are they engaging in debate with an open mind? Are they big enough to acknowledge weaknesses in their own argument and consider yours? And what about me? Is the same true of me? Am I truly honest? If I encounter an argument I can't counter, does that make me feel distressed or enlightened?

• What is the cost? What will this do to me emotionally, or to my environment around me? Is the cost worth the potential payoff? Will it cause bad will, tension, or hostility? When considering the cost, I try to remember not to substitute the issue for the argument: if I can end an injustice through debate, it's worth having. But is that what's actually in play in any debate? Of what consequence is it really what I think - or more to the point what I claim to think? How about my opponent? There is nothing more ridiculous than two people in the United States screaming at each other about...Tibet, maybe...as if they're convinced their opinion has any impact whatsoever on the situation there.

I find for me it is difficult at first to back away from arguments on a select number of topics which really wind me up. I am no different from anyone else. My buttons can most certainly be pressed. There are a few BIG RED ONES.

But I have never once regretted, an hour later, avoiding an argument on these or other issues, or even remaining entirely silent, as if to indicate disinterest or unwillingness to engage.

Not once.

I have, however, often regretted engaging in a debate even if I thought I won.

Just as salesmen know that the best way to part people with their cash is to make the customer thinks he, himself, initiated the buy ("I definitely need this car and I have convinced myself my life will be better with it,") so, too, the best propagandists and advocates know there's no better way to win an argument or campaign than to make people think they came around via their own superior logic: that it was their thought all along.

So much debate is attack and self-defense; a lizard-brained war for who's (inadequate and sad) map of reality is more "true." It has very little to do with facts or logic or objective reality. Most debates are about fear and insecurity, especially when someone's map of reality (always deficient, always missing details, hidden valleys, and even all the land beyond the horizon of personal experience) is threatened. Advocates engage in debate to convince themselves of the accuracy of their own map, and people go into Higher Primate Defense mode when they are informed their own map is wrong. That sort of anomie and cognitive dissonance is just something the human animal does not want to tolerate. I hate it. I hate worrying about what it is I don't know - what it is that could kill or hurt me that I'm ignorant of.

I mean this warmly and kindly: I hope all of the loudest advocates for any position, ideology, political position, or religion, can experience the catharsis and epiphany of saying - in a way they themselves believe - "I don't really know."

You may feel you need a cigarette. You may reach for a wet towel. You may feel tired, limp, and satisfied after doing so. Wonderful experience.

Silence, for the mean time, is like an ibuprofen you take for a headache you otherwise would have experienced in the future. Ever log on to reddit to find 15 responses to something you wrote, all hostile? Who the hell wants that?