The answer to that question is another question: "How much have I had to drink?"

Hmmm...to me, discussing and arguing are different. I used to argue A LOT. I wanted to blow off steam and I wanted to WIN. Isn't that arguing? It's a verbal wrestling match.
Discussion is critical to me, increasingly critical, as I age. I think I use others' thoughts as a resource for honing my own, with people I care deeply about so that I know they're thinking things through and with worthwhile people as a means of engaging.
Arguing is LESS critical to me as I age. Now I voice my opinion (or not) and then step back without engagement.
These days, I seem to discuss with people who are worthwhile to me. And, I take the arguing (increasingly avoidant) stance with people who are worth LESS to me. Winning, not so important over 50. Proving my point can be critical when talking with my son or his fiance, other 20 somethings I care about.

I argue to get at the truth. It a real joy to encounter an opponent that has the skeptical chops to bring a well-evidenced argument.

If I am to be more correct tomorrow, I must acknowledge when I lose today. Embarrassing or not, that is how it works.

I usually defend my point until such a time as I feel I am in danger of learning something or growing as a person and then make a joke and walk away.

I don't argue about unimportant topics.

It doesn't matter. I declare myself the winner no matter what.

In my idle moments I sometimes daydream of a perfect sandwich, two slices of thick wholegrain bread with thin coats of butter and mayonaise topped with thick slices of lean roast beef. Interpersed with those slices is just enough brown mustard with horseradish and a final lettuce topping. Added is a large juicy kosher dill. It sounds so good!

However when I make such a sandwich it never quite measures up to my ideal. It is the same with arguments, discussions or debates. You look forward to it, try to anticpate and be prepared for what comes and invaribly you are disappointed. Either the other side scoffs at anything outside of their viewpoint and opinion or they vebally attack you.

Often they will rely on sketchy information, misdirected quotes or quote an odd & strange source as total fact. People or trolls who use religion, political or that off the wall fringe source as "gospel" and those who act as know it alls in a subject they're woefully ignorant of, just seem to be the norm nowadays.

Why is the art of debate, discussion and argument reduced to who can outshout the other?

To win or prove your point with someone you don't know and highly unlikely to meet is an exercise in futility!

I only "argue" when I know that the othr party is wrong. Otherwise I usually listen to their position and decide if the discussion is worthwhile.

Im willing to be wrong hence discussing things

I used to think winning was important. Not anymore.

Depends on my level of knowledge on the subject matter.

Some people don't care about facts or logic. Their minds have been conditioned to a belief, and arguing with them will not make any difference. Certain people I don't even start discussing anything with them. Flat earthers for one and I have some in my family.

This.

I tend not to argue past a certain point. I like a discussion, I like to hear others points, and I like them to hear mine. That is the end of it for me, if they or I are not convinced, I levae it be.

There is rarely a reason to win an argument, but there is always reason to learn/teach through argument.

Neither if in a debate or discussion and I get an epiphany or learn something that is what I walk away with. Although if someone is wrong depending upon the person I will either walk away and never let on that I have better facts. If I feel friendly toward the person I will give settle hints to help them self correct.

very important but I will concede occasionally as I do use conjecture

It depends on who I'm talking to. Sometimes I just like to fuck with people. It is a very affordable hobby.

Winning am argument is a rare event for anybody , even if you prove beyond doubt your point is correct most people never cede and they just hate ya

To me, it is important to "win" an argument only if (1) the other is obnoxious in his or her behavior, and.or (2) I view his or her point of view as downright mmoral and dangerous.

Should be, but it is nice to "win". I'm trying a more "Street Epistemology" approach to try & curb that tendency.

Confession time: I love arguing as an entertainment. Wanna argue about Flat Earth? I'm your guy. Pick a side and away we go. What about teaching children manners? OK. Lets have at it. Are women's orgasms real or just done to get it over with? Is Sasquatch real? The Oxford comma? A personal favorite.