He simply did not understand what you said and reacted to a phantom version of your argument. He’s arguing with his inference of what you said, not what you actually said
He simply did not understand what you said and reacted to a phantom version of your argument. He’s arguing with his inference of what you said, not what you actually said
There are many such cases, and it's not possible to babysit every confused interlocutor.
Correcting someone is teaching, and teaching can be rewarding—especially when the learner is bright, curious, asks probing questions, and synthesizes feedback—but it is energy- and time-intensive.
One should continually evaluate cost–benefit trade-offs and conserve effort for higher-ROI, higher-order decisions instead of being drawn into every gripe from a needy or confused challenger.
Arguing with everyone is neither necessary nor advisable; it impedes progress. Choosing battles requires judging what is winnable and worth the investment, and managing attention and effort like a project.