Nope. It's pretty much guaranteed that each side thinks their own position is superior. Else why would they hold it? The problem is when a party is so certain in their superiority they are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong. That guarantees an unproductive discussion. I'm beginning to think that this might be an example of such.
The problem is when a party is so certain in their superiority they are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong.
Which is a straw-man argument, as you're asserting something which might or might not happen in a hypothetical exchange based on my preconceived notions regarding a typically violent, intolerant group of people to be reality.
You're asserting a hypothetical outcome based on my assumptions regarding a hypothetical dialogue. You could be right, but it doesn't classify as fact. So it's a bit of a straw-man-ish shaped argument to be so adamant about.
For fun, replace Nazi's with Jazz (we can make this mental leap...weeee). Maybe I'm not really into it and have preconceived ideas about why people like it. Perhaps I can convert them to Baroque, I think to myself. In the process of talking to someone about Jazz I gain a broader understanding of its intricacies, but still without having to like Jazz. They, of course, find Baroque bereft of any spirit and we part ways and so my sinister plan has failed.
Then someone comes along and asks, why even talk about Jazz with this guy? He doesn't like it and never will.
Well, nothing changed except one more person understands the others position a little better. Perhaps with time the dialogue can evolve into something more sophisticated. Meanwhile Jazz-lovers-friend shakes his head thinking, what a waste of time...
