The Smartest Way to Win an Argument with a Fool
There is an old saying—often misattributed, endlessly paraphrased, and almost always misunderstood:
Most people read this and think it means “Don’t bother arguing at all.”
But that’s not quite right.
Because in real life, you don’t get to avoid every argument. You have coworkers, relatives, internet strangers, neighbors, group chats, comment sections, and that one person who is confidently wrong in a way that feels like a personal insult to reality itself.
So the real question isn’t whether to argue with a fool.
It’s this:
What does “winning” even mean in an argument like that?
If you think winning means changing their mind, you’ve already lost.
If you think winning means proving you’re smarter, you’re playing the wrong game.
And if you think winning means getting the last word, congratulations—you’ve just handed them the trophy.
The smartest way to win an argument with a fool requires a complete redefinition of victory.
First: Define “Fool” (Because It’s Not About Intelligence)
A fool is not someone with low intelligence.
Some fools are very smart. Some have degrees. Some sound articulate. Some use big words and citations and speak with absolute confidence.
A fool, in the context of argument, is someone who:
Is not interested in truth, only in winning
Treats opinions as identity, not ideas
Cannot admit uncertainty or error
Moves goalposts when challenged
Responds to evidence with emotion or mockery
In other words, a fool is defined by how they argue, not by how much they know.
And here’s the uncomfortable part:
We have all been the fool in at least one argument.
This matters, because the smartest strategy is rooted in humility, not superiority.
Why You Can’t Win the Way You Think You Can
Most people enter arguments with a hidden assumption:
If I explain myself clearly enough, the other person will understand.
That assumption only works if both people share three things:
A respect for evidence
A willingness to change their mind
A shared definition of reality
When even one of those is missing, the argument stops being about truth and starts being about dominance.
Continue reading…
