The Folly of Arguing With the Unarmed

There’s an old line often attributed to Mark Twain that still echoes with uncomfortable truth: “It’s hard to match wits with an unarmed man.” Whether Twain said it exactly that way or not is almost beside the point—the wisdom holds. Trying to engage in meaningful discourse with someone who comes unprepared—without facts, without context, without a willingness to learn—is not a debate. It’s an exercise in futility.

Over the years, variations of that same idea have surfaced again and again:

• “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
• “Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
• “Arguing with a fool proves there are two.” — Doris M. Smith

Each one, in its own way, speaks to the same reality: not every voice is grounded in truth, and not every argument deserves a response.

We are living in a time where access to information is unlimited, yet understanding is optional. Social media has become the modern-day town square—but without the guardrails of accountability. In this election season especially, what we are witnessing is not just spirited debate; it is the unchecked spread of misinformation, half-truths, and in some cases, outright fabrication—presented boldly as fact.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth: many of those posting are not seeking clarity—they’re seeking attention. They are not interested in being informed—they are interested in being heard. Loudly. Repeatedly. And often incorrectly.

There’s a saying that captures it perfectly: Arguing with the ignorant is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how skilled you are, the bird is going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it won anyway.

That’s not discourse. That’s disruption.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in social media debates. Not because there isn’t value in conversation—but because not all platforms foster conversation. Some only reward confrontation. And when the goal shifts from seeking truth to simply “winning,” the entire exercise becomes hollow.

The “unarmed” individual in these exchanges isn’t lacking intelligence alone—they’re lacking intent. Intent to listen. Intent to learn. Intent to grow. Without that, facts become irrelevant, logic becomes ineffective, and truth becomes negotiable.

I speak on this because during this election cycle we've been challenged. However, as a publication, and as a voice in this community, our responsibility is not to argue with every misguided opinion—it is to inform, to educate, and to elevate the level of understanding. We owe our readers more than noise. We owe them clarity.

So no, we won’t be in the comment sections trading barbs. We won’t chase every false narrative down a rabbit hole. Instead, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: present facts, ask the right questions, and trust that those who truly seek truth will recognize it when they see it.

Because in the end, wisdom isn’t proven in arguments—it’s revealed in discernment.