To say that people who are confident in their opinion don’t need to “win the argument” is a convenient way to ignore an actual point someone’s making. It’s basically an ad hominem attack: I’m only saying things out of some insecurity, so why bother responding to the actual argument?
The fact is, we’re on a forum — we make points, give and take, sometimes in agreement, sometimes in disagreement, sometimes changing our views, sometimes (ok, usually) not. I don’t assail people personally, though I may attack arguments. You may want to consider doing likewise.
I don't find it especially convenient, and I think my posting was a general observation, not directed at you personally. If my choice of grammar lead you to conclude otherwise, I apologise for a poor choice of words. Lack of communication can be equally the fault of the Transmitter as well as the received. It’s basically an ad hominem attack: I’m only saying things out of some insecurity, so why bother responding to the actual argument? The fact is, we’re on a forum — we make points, give and take, sometimes in agreement, sometimes in disagreement, sometimes changing our views, sometimes (ok, usually) not. I don’t assail people personally, though I may attack arguments. You may want to consider doing likewise.
Bully for you, if I am guilty of having attacked you personally, that was not my intention. It's all too human to confuse the opinion with the human. Somewhere it is calculated that Language consists of the vital component of share definitions for words, but those words compose only seven percent, or so, of Language. The vast remaining 93 percent is, more or less, equally divided between body language and edged out with a plurality of "tone of voice," which is not possible to share in a forum like this.