You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And – A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still.
Carnegie, Dale (2010-09-30). How To Win Friends And Influence People (Kindle Locations 1972-1977). Ebury Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Is it universally true that being shown wrong in an argument leads to resentment, preventing learning? Surely that happens sometimes. But always?
It's just methodologically unconstrained anecdotes, but if I look back at my personal history of changing my mind on things, occasions where I was shown by others to be an idiot, and the associated shame and humiliation, have been powerful forces for me to rethink and improve my position.
Maybe there are different kinds of personality: those who react to a good argument by learning, and those that react by ressentiment and aggression. This has been thematised in social though as the distinction between a normative and a cognitive learning style.
When I argue about things with similarly-minded friends, we all win all the time -- the aim is never to make the other person agree with yourself, but for both parties to agree on what's correct (which is sometimes what you think, sometimes what they think, and sometimes a third thing entirely).
It's a shame that my "similarly-minded friends list" is in the single digits :(
(It's not even that most people are stubborn and loud - quite the opposite - it's that they interpret constructive criticism (sometimes even neutral discussion) as conflict and shy away from it)
Carnegie, Dale (2010-09-30). How To Win Friends And Influence People (Kindle Locations 1972-1977). Ebury Publishing. Kindle Edition.