Why political debates never persuade anyone
There's an enormous difference between trying to convince someone and trying to "beat" them in an argument.

One of the common complaints in discourse is that people don't get convinced by political arguments because they're closed-minded and tribal.
This might be partially true, but in this story, I'm taking the side of people who don't get convinced. They have a good reason not to be convinced, which is that their conversation partners aren't really trying to convince them; they're trying to win an argument.
Political arguments can only be understood through the metaphor of war. You come "armed" with arguments and facts and "crush" your opponent's arguments until you pull out the "winning argument." The most zealous also enthusiastically add that the winner "humiliated" their "opponent" and "left them on the ropes."
Even beyond using vocabulary from the military or boxing world, an argument is conducted like a duel, with a heated and angry atmosphere where two contestants land blows on each other, clash with each other, and even mock each other, and at the end, a winner is crowned (or, more commonly, both sides claim victory).
And after the victory, there's a regular ceremony - sometimes openly, sometimes just in the "winner's" head - where they express deep disappointment that the other side didn't acknowledge their defeat and declare that they changed their mind.
The refusal to acknowledge defeat is seen as proof that the loser and their entire camp are not objective, not serious, and not committed to truth. And that's how we got to "people don't change their minds."
And rightfully they don't change their minds. Who has the emotional strength to admit they made a fundamental mistake in front of someone who just defeated them, humiliated them, won against them, and (sometimes also) mocked them?
The refusal to admit mistake in this situation isn't an expression of close-mindedness, it's an expression of humanity: I don't want to stand up and align myself with someone who just hurt me. More or less all of us can understand and identify with this feeling, and therefore it's also clear that the "winner" wasn't looking to convince, but to win.
They're interested in getting the satisfaction of feeling victorious, and sometimes also the applause from their side's supporters. They're not looking to convince through a technique (namely, argument) that everyone openly admits doesn't move anyone from their position.
By the way, this is why most people who switched to another political camp tell that what caused them to change their mind was an event, not a person. Events aren't personal and they don't try to humiliate you personally, they simply happen, and therefore it's much easier to say they caused you to change your position. The few who did change their minds because of another person tell about accidentally encountering a video or text that made them think differently.
I haven't yet met anyone who said "I switched sides because they beat me in an argument."
And if we still want to take active action and not just wait for events to happen, I recommend not thinking about politics in terms of a battlefield, but in terms of romantic courtship. Someone who wants to win another person's heart doesn't "attack" them, doesn't "charge" at them, and doesn't "defeat" them, unless they're a complete idiot.
In fact, if you find yourself in a situation where you're playing some game against your courtship target, it's pretty well known that you should lose on purpose, or at least not win by too large a margin. Such a victory only hurts the ego and creates antagonism, and that's not how you win anyone's heart.
How do you win? You say "you're right about this point," "wow you convinced me about that," "I appreciate your knowledge even if we disagree," "this was a fascinating conversation." People like being complimented, and everyone has qualities that can be honestly complimented. And if you've found someone with no qualities at all, you don't want them in your camp.
Complimenting and making someone feel comfortable around you helps, but it's not the main thing. The main thing is to be an attractive person. People are drawn to human beings with charisma, intellect, integrity, sensitivity, humor, etc. People want to be in the company of such human beings and feel they are "part" of them, in a sense.
As far as I can tell, this is also a central motivation for people who switch to another political camp: right-wingers often move to the left because they see it as having integrity, empathy, intellectual depth, and a developed sense of justice. Left-wingers often move to the right because they identify in it authenticity, simplicity, loyalty, and common sense. But more often, it's the negative traits of camps that drive people away from them.
For instance, sometimes the empathy and developed sense of justice of parts of the left are directed more toward Arabs than toward Jews (which contradicts the very idea of justice) and sometimes the authenticity and simplicity of the right are a thin veil for hypocritical bestiality and herd mentality.
Therefore I think the most important element for someone who wants to convince is self-improvement, and the second most important element is patience. This approach doesn't have the immediate satisfaction that comes with the adrenaline of argument and the ego boost of victory. But it is a productive approach, unlike argument which is counter-productive.
When human beings present their position articulately and patiently and demonstrate integrity and kindness even toward those from the other camp, they receive much, much more attention than when they rudely throw "winning" arguments. And over time, attention often turns into identification.
Elad Nahshon is a PhD student at Bar Ilan University, studying the political and social history of Zionism and the State of Israel.