Generally no. As my avatar so aptly observed, more than two centuries ago, "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

One of my favorites....

For many people there's a syndrome in which they become so emotionally attached to their opinions that any challenge to the opinion, especially facts that contradict their opinion actually causes them to grip even tighter to the opinion. Usually about all you can do is plant a seed. Sometimes it may take root, often it probably won't.

Nope. As Scott D. Weitzenhoffer put it, "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

I don't argue I just say what is fact, shut my mouth and leave.

Assuming they are not true believer and you care about making progress with someone, the best thing to do is find common ground. Sometimes I show them something that we both agree is crazy, then try to get them to explain why it's wrong. They are usually willing to use the tools of critical thinking then.

Here is a video I like people to look at.

Usually those that still continue to argue after vast amounts of data have been shown to the opposite of their beliefs, they will begin to close their minds to any one else's "theories'. Regardless if the proof is right there, in their hands, they will still stand by their original opinion, and no amount of discussion will get them to change. I just went through this with someone. It's not worth the trouble at all, because all I got was a headache and an ulcer, yet he still thought he was right.

I find that it better prepares me for real debates. I get their side, in full, which makes me better understand their side. You can not argue effectively if you do not know all sides of the debate.

No. If they are not going to be rational and objective, don't waste your breath.

There is no point.

I give it one try. Then it's goodbye. (Oops! I had a rhyme.)

Noooooo! Unless you just wanna blow off steam and yell at someone, there is little--if any--constructive value here.

No, but sometimes it's fun to see how close you can get to making their heads explode. Good times.

It's like 'flogging a dead horse'

Some people are obviously unable to divorce emotion from their opinions. One can either be logical or one can be emotional. Some do not know the difference and those are the ones that are frustrating to have a debate with because they will not be convinced by any evidence you present. Also, a factor is that human intelligence is distributed all over the bell-curve...some are not intelligent enough to make or accept logical arguments. The ones not intelligent enough to understand that they do not have a logical argument seem blissfully unaware of their plight as in the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

No.

Unless you want to feel like you’re talking to a wall, it’s just not worth it.

There was a time, when I was a college instructor, that I suffered the delusion that most people were uninformed, not stupid. I'm now older, less energetic, less optimistic, and dramatically less interested in the survival of this idiot species. The last election convinced me that the best thing for this planet would be the rapid extinction of homo sapiens.

I live in a blue state, but like all blue states, outside of the urban population centers, the countryside is filled with dropouts, losers, drug addicts, and religious nitwits. I retired to a small tourist town about 50 miles from Minneapolis/St. Paul and it is amazing how hopeless stupid the average rural dweller is. They think of themselves as being resourceful, independent, and "real Americans," but they are uneducated, superstitious, and terrified of everything they see on television. Typically, crime levels in small towns would cause martial law in a city, but they delude themselves into imagining it is "safer in the country." Because their math skills are sub-monkey, it's impossible to explain how typical crime and violence statistics work. The whole "per 100,000" thing baffles their inbred minds.

So, no. I don't bother to try "enlighten" anyone about anything. I'm old. It's no longer my job. It probably never should have been.

I don't think it's a matter of making a point. It's a matter of voicing your opinion versus theirs. Whether they agree or not is immaterial.

You can argue with them to get them to value truth and evidence (this sometimes works, I've succeeded a couple times). Failing that, it's time to move on.

Probably not, but it happens anyway. You will never change this persons mind.

I now say "yes", there's no point in direct arguments. Rather than argue by making a statement, I now simply ask questions that challenges them - hoping that my questions kick-start their thinking brain - so that it can overwhelm their reactionary brain.

EDIT: I believe it's best if they learn for themselves. I believe that the best I can do is to nudge them towards finding out for themselves. END EDIT.

E.g.:
Just yesterday I had a discussion with a friend about the trends of current pop-culture. The discussion had racists and anti-feminist undertones. He was complaining how the big blockbusters of today are appealing to the masses by adding more diverse characters than just white men only to increase their profit margins rather than for the story.

He complained: "Why did they make the admiral a woman in the last Star Wars movie? It's only to appeal to the feminists - to make the movie more progressive."

I replied: "I dunno. I wonder why they made Ackbar an admiral in the previous movies? He wasn't even human."

He then said: "I have no problem with Rogue One. The diverse cast was excellent - except for that blind Jedi. He is only there so that Disney can distribute the movie to the Chinese market."

I confirmed this with: "Ahhh, yeah. That city they rescued him from looked like it was based on the U.S. occupation of a Middle Eastern city. That blind Jedi should have been Arabic and not Chinese."

(As an aside: I read somewhere that the Chinese government does require a U.S. movie to have at least one actor of Asian descent to have a semi-minor roll for it to be shown in China.)

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam puts it nicely in prose.
"How long, how long, in definite Pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute?
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
Than sadder after none, or bitter, Fruit".

If someone can not accept facts just because they don't support their point of view, then it's a lost cause.