I just noticed this "similar threads" thingie at the bottom of the page... so it's like... oh neat topic.
Sure it's like uhm... from... april... but that doesn't matter. Right?
Anyways, the point of argument is nil; arguing solves nothing, it's annoying, and is a waste of time.
DEBATE, on the other hand... has value twofold.
It encourages the opponent to think critically about their own position, and it provides cheap entertainment to the ENTP.
Now, the second one is great, but the first one can branch off indirectly.
See, if the OPPONENT has to learn whot their own position actually means, either they realize they're wrong, making the entp happy that they won via understanding, or they provide a point that makes sense, changing the ENTP's own beliefs, thereby making the entp happy that they just learned something new.
Either way, it's win-win.
Assumming that the opponent in the debate actually thinks critically about their own position and knows WTH they're talking about. If they just spout off random nonsense and don't have any clue how to back it up, it's a total waste of time; this's where arguments come in. An argument is one sided, no information is exchanged. Information may be SENT, but it isn't RECIEVED. Someone in an argument won't learn anything, because they're not trying to.
Yeu can't change someone's mind once it's made up, it's an impossible task. The only thing yeu can do is present them with the facts, and they have to decide if they actually care about reality or not. Yeu can try to force them to think, but it won't work if they really don't want to. Best yeu can do there is guide them around like a sheep at that point so that yeu at least get the end result yeu were looking for, even if it was more effort and they didn't learn a thing doing it.
In any case, debating is a game... not one to be won as such... just the act of playing the game is where the enjoyment lies.
That being said though, I personally will challange all sorts of stuff, even things I believe. If someone holds a different viewpoint than I do, I challange it, so they have to prove whot they believe to themselves, and to me. They might actually be right, but they need to provide evidence of such, and reasoning to back it up. On the other hand, if they hold the same viewpoint that I do... I challange it anyway. I understand through external communication, bouncing ideas off people, and so on, it's an E thing. As such, by playing devil's advocate, I can more easily poke holes in my own theory by poking it in THEIRS, in which case I know where the holes are and can figure out how I would've said it myself, or see if there's a flaw in there somewheres. If they can't argue back their own point, either they don't understand it well enough, or we may in fact both be wrong and I'll have to reconsider my position.
Either way, I'm going to debate the matter into the ground, and latch onto every single thing, be it an analogy that I go off the end of the world with and abusively turn back against them, or a piece of evidence, where I'll point out how it doesn't apply, or how it can be interpreted to support the opposite argument.
If yeu don't have someone forcing yeu to evaluate yeur own reasoning, yeu'll never grow. I can't do this to my own self very well at all (E not I), so I do it to everyone else, especially those that hold the same view as I do. I learn more from debating against someone who holds the same view that I do, than I do from trying to think about it on my own, by several factors of magnitude.
I imagine, that most of this applies to ENTP's in general.
I'd say sorry for graverobbing, but I love digging up stuff about me. Yay for long dead posts, ressurected!
Soon, my necromantic goal of becomming a lichess shall be achieved!