Throughout my life, I’ve witnessed — and sometimes participated in — countless debates, both in person and, more recently, online. And in all these years, I have yet to see a single case where the participants actually convinced each other. Never have I heard one side say, “You know what, you’re right — I’ve changed my mind and now support your point of view.” Not even a softening of positions seems to happen. At best, people part ways with a polite, “Well, we couldn’t convince each other — good luck.” At worst, they become enemies.
At school, we were taught that “truth is born from argument.”
But experience suggests otherwise. In most cases, nothing is born — except exhaustion. In my own life, what often dies in these encounters is the desire to continue engaging with the other person at all.
Let’s take a concrete example. Suppose you meet someone who says:
“We’ve never lived as well in Armenia as we have these past seven years.”
Read also
You try to push back:
“But what about the defeat? What about the victims? What about the loss of Artsakh, the territorial losses of Armenia?”
And the reply is:
“What does Nikol have to do with any of that?”
End of conversation. Dead end.
You each have your own definition of what it means to “live well.” And nothing you say will bridge that gulf.
So what can change people’s views?
Ruben Vardanyan once said: personal example, self-sacrifice. And he didn’t just say it — he acted on it. But let’s be honest: it doesn’t really work. Even with Ruben, much of society looked for some hidden motive, some foreign “assignment.”
Is there any point in arguing with such suspicion? I don’t think so.
In theory, opinions can only shift when circumstances change — when people feel the impact of reality directly, on their own skin.
But in an environment flooded with propaganda — churning endlessly from murky sources — even that may not be enough. People may be too “Shell-shocked” to feel it at all.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
