That they're annoying!

Tiresome and not worth arguing with. (Unless, of course, it's me when I'm PMSing...)

they are selfish

The need to win is challenging to those with whom they would argue, but more important is the method by which they choose to attain that goal. Overtalking and turning up the volume is alienating and frustrating, whereas applying logic, knowledge, and all the other proper debating tools is good exposure. I refuse to argue with screamers and those who resort to foul language, and try to argue with people who try to keep the discussion on a higher plane. This isn't always possible, of course, but it is a goal. I try to enjoy my arguments, and to learn something from them. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way. Even then, I might be forced to accept that I am being baited and must not resort to nya-nya tactics. That can be difficult, and it takes practice.

In my opinion, it shows signs of insecurity. I have seen alot of this on AB as well. There are alot of people who just refuse to see what someone actually says, and instead see what they want to see. Alot of times people will get offended by what they THINK they see, even if that is not what is actually there. I have been in quite a few " online heated conversations" here on AB, because people refuse to let something go. Most times I will leave maybe 4-5 comments in the discussion, and after that I will unsubscribe. I have actually been "chased" to another answer's comment thread by someone who was mad that they couldn't get me to come over to their viewpoint before I just decided there was no point to continuing the debate. They left a response to the debate thread in the comments to a completely different question, just because they had to have the last word. In my opinion, this shows signs of insecurity, being overcompensated for to hide the fact that they do not feel good about themselves.

arrogant.... Enough said.

I think even less of people who think discussions are "won" or "lost". I also think even less of people who think that discussions are about defending territory instead of thinking they are about learning new things. I also think even less of people who wallow in ignorance and bigotry and just call it an "opinion".

Stubborn, proud, and often close minded.

People who need to win every argument are prideful and egotistical. They feel this way because they have a poor self-image. They don't feel good about themselves on their own so they 'perform' and show off, so to speak, in ways like needing to win arguments or needing to have the last word, so that they can come off as better than the other person. In a transitory and fleeting way, this makes them feel good about themselves.

We all want to win arguments, that's the "object of the game" in arguing. If you aren't out to win, you're not really participating... it's like playing a sport -- the idea is to play your best and try to win, you're "out of integrity" with the game if you're not doing that. The trouble (as your question hints) is with the "need" to win the argument -- when we start thinking that proving ourselves right will resolve some inner need, things start to get ugly. One cannot fix their insecurities by proving a point in an argument. There's also another level of this that has to do with how one relates to argument: at it's best, an argument is transformative for both parties -- both people come out the other end of the argument somewhat changed, with a richer understanding of themselves and life, and a new appreciation for their opponent. Opposition is a fundamental developmental aspect of life: without opposition, we do not grow, do not learn, do not become our true self. Nobody becomes strong by sitting around in a warm golden goo of superficial "harmony", we become strong by getting lots of exercise. But that exercise should be done in the right spirit, and "need to win" as you've alluded to it here, is the wrong spirit.

I think that these kind of people seem to always find each other here in the bag!

1) "Ultracompetitive people, who always need to win, end up enjoying things less. If they lose they are very disappointed, and if they win it's what they expected would happen anyway." Source: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0061157910 2) "When it came to relationships I was the same way. I had to win at everything, win every argument no matter how insignificant. I had to always be right. I had to have the best grades among all my peers. As you can imagine, this attitude did not make me too popular. A desire to win that strong is not a recipe for healthy and long lasting friendships or relationships. If the goal is to always win, it is difficult to sustain a healthy friendship which requires give and take." "And I learned to lose in life. I learned that these principles did not just apply to poker, that allowing people you have relationships with to win is a good thing in the long term. I learned that I don't need to win every argument, I just need to win the ones that are really important to me. It is okay to let my partner or my friend win an argument about something that they are passionate about, even if I think I am right, if it is for the best health of our long term relationship. I could never have done that without the lessons I learned through poker. And I am so thankful for that because my life is so much more complete and happy because of the wonderful friends I have." Source and further information: http://www.annieduke.com/articles.php?articleID=70 3) Maybe if you are just interested in winning, you are missing the most important things!

I say, if anyone, including you, is arguing a position, it is because they believe they are right, and therefore have a moral obligation to argue their point until they are convinced that they were wrong, or they win the debate. If your Best Friend thought he/she could survive a fall of over a kilometer, would you not do your very best to convince them otherwise? Would you not feel a pressing "Need" to win that argument, before they tried to prove you wrong?

they make good politicians

They are generally closed minded which is a shame because they can't learn anymore with a locked mind.

They are a pain in the butt

its annoying. i let them win it's pointless. arrogant people

They're too insecure with who they are, and they define themselves by being right about everything.

I don't need to win every argument it just works out that way because I am always right..and I'm Kidding!! I am not big on arguing I would rather just walk away :)

I think they're incredibly insecure.

It can be -stubborn/with a great idea -stubborn/ with a stupid idea or just not accepted in a streotyped society - lack confidence -insercure -unique - odd( in a streotyped society) The second one must be VERY diligent and witty if one wishes to win the argument.

I think they must walk around disappointed fairly often.

I think about whether or not you're mixing debate with arguments. But if the person NEEDS to win, then they should reevaluate themselves and decide if they are still the person that they want to be.

8-21-2017 What bugs me is somebody who thinks he has to win every CONVERSATION.

I think I need to win every argument. If not, my ego will get bruised. LOL