Forum

and still, there are zero convinced people

You simply don't understand how such discussions work. It's clear that no one will admit they are wrong, even if presented with compelling arguments. And for some issues, such arguments simply don't exist. However, the process continues, and it is accompanied by the following phenomena: 1) Articulating one's point of view aloud, verbalizing it, and searching for arguments for and against engages a useful organ – the brain. That is, an opinion transforms from a "voice of the heart" into a "voice of reason," which is useful in itself, even if the point of view does not change in the process. 2) Supporters of similar points of view exchange arguments, supplementing, clarifying, or emphasizing their own thoughts. This is useful for both general development and for future discussions. For example, I have repeatedly seen people retelling my posts, or even directly quoting them, even though I wasn't even acquainted with them. 3) An undecided or wavering part of the audience has the opportunity to listen to the points of view of both sides and draw their own conclusions. This is the most significant point, as active participation in debates is usually limited to a smaller part of the group, while most people simply read, without expressing their opinion or participating in the discussion. Not everyone is independently interested in politics and economics, but most are quite willing to listen to discussions on these topics. That is, public discussions are often aimed not so much at convincing opponents as at recruiting supporters. 4) Constructively minded opponents can adjust their point of view in the process of analyzing the arguments. And even if they don't fully accept it, they at least make a note to themselves that there is another point of view, and it is reasonable in its own way. In general, two intelligent people can agree with each other much more easily than two unintelligent people. Because truth and objectivity are ultimately one, and if two people are looking for them, even from different sides, they will eventually find themselves quite close to each other. 5) Non-constructively minded opponents can see how their position aligns with the opinion of the group. And if it doesn't align, they will express it less often in order to avoid being ostracized. Of course, there are some extremely stubborn individuals (there are 2 of them in this discussion) for whom none of the previous points apply, but they are also useful – their presence reduces the reputation of the point of view they defend. For some reason, in most cases, these individuals end up on the side that is losing the discussion, which is also an indicator. Something like that...