On the other hand, there are times when I have written paragraphs of well sourced text on my phone, and just before pressing "Post" I realize that I don't care about it.

If one views them as discussions instead of arguments, they tend to turn out better.

Sometimes it's more about convincing the random lurkers reading everything than convincing the person you're arguing against.

(Also, people rarely admit losing an argument and changing their mind in the moment. But later on, in private, they might change their views because of the argument.)

On the other hand, one thing an internet argument (or other forms of public debate) can do is change the audience's minds, or bring them to your cause if they're uncommitted. Lenin became the effective Russian head of state in part by being good at debates.

I generally never enter an online debate with the intention of convincing the other person of my point of view. I enter a debate to provide a (hopefully) strong counter argument for the benefit of the lurkers reading.

As an example, I am extremely unlikely to convince a tankie that the USSR's authoritarianism is a bad thing, but my arguments may help a less politically savy reader not become duped by a tankie's propaganda, and that's worthwhile to try for.

*recieves hundreds of downclicks for my long ass rant*

FUCK ALL YALL I'M RIIIIIIIGH

Sometimes it's about clarifying your own thoughts.

Those arguments are for the onlookers.

It's not about changing minds, it's about being right. 😎

Good thing that argument fizzled out in a chase for internet points and nothing was taken out on the streets.