Productive argument does happen. As Colonial America began to stagger under the oppressive weight of King George’s and the British East India Company’s insatiable hunger for more money with nothing given in return, debate and argument broke out about what to do. In that debate, there were everything from revolutionary liberals like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Ben Franklin, to Americans who were deeply concerned about rebelling against the existing social order. John Dickinson, James Wilson were indisputably loyalists, but were touched by the arguments for liberty. When the Declaration of Independence was written, they cast their lot with the Patriots. Lord Dunmore and Thomas Hutchinson are examples of men who never came around, and who paid a price for standing their ground.
The same is true in argument today. It’s extremely rare to encounter someone so enamored with truth that they will change their opinion the moment they are provided reasonable and verifiable evidence suggesting they should. But over time, lots of people will come around it the overwhelming weight of evidence appears to be against them. Then there are the ideologues who live outside the evidence based Universe. No amount of evidence will ever convince them. They will use hand waving, logical fallacies and when all else fails, just chant “Nah, nah, nah, nah! I can’t hear you!” rather then ever question a belief they hold. But even with them, you occasionally pick up a rebuttal they offer and realize it has merit, and you can then further hone your position.
Then there are all the people who aren’t directly arguing, but who are following the discussion. It’s much more likely that people among that group who have been wondering which side they should take will be influenced by the argument that relies of factual evidence instead of personal opinions and gut feelings.
So to all those who disdain debate, I would argue you are missing a great deal of the pay for living. Will I convince you? Probably not, but it’s worth a try. :-)