Nope. I basically just try to change the minds of libertarians and conservatives. Or at least get them to see the issues from a different perspective. Hopelessly arrogant I know..
If that bothers you, you have the option to change your approach, you know...
Have you ever changed your mind on a fundamental issue as a result of an argument?
On the internet or real life? Family or colleagues or friends?
What scale of issues?
On the contrary to popular belief about the efficacy of argument on the internet, I have seen people change their minds on big issues such as politics and religion, which were catalysed by arguments on the internet. But are these the exceptions, rather than the norms? (the individuals in question were NTs)
I'm actually pretty teachable, regardless of whether the other person is family, friend, acquaintance, or stranger. It's the idea that impacts me. The funny thing is that it sometimes doesn't have to be specifically what the other person has argued -- they can convince me of a minor point in their argument, but immediately I will systematically run that shift through the entire situation all on my own (they don't need to point it out to me) and sometimes it can make drastic changes in the answer I end up at. So they'll win me on a small point, and suddenly they might be shocked that my seemingly unrelated (but actually it is very related) conclusion shifts.
I'm sitting here and trying to think of some large shift I made in something because of an actual argument. It took me awhile, but now I've had a few.
1. About ten years ago, when I was arguing circumcision with an atheist ESTJ friend, where at that time I had held the position that circumcision was supported because of its health benefits. I don't remember what he said (although he was always pretty blunt, and detailed, and relentless)... but during that discussion it registered to me that, although people were claiming statistical percentages of health increase to support circumcision, actually those percentages made for very very small shifts in the actual number of lives improved. For example, one could claim that circumcision reduces risk of disease by 50% (that sounds like a HUGE number), but if you look at the data, it could simply mean that instead of 12 boys out of 10,000 getting an infection, only 6 boys out of 10,000 get an infection.
So we're talking about a medical operation that removes skin from the genital area from virtually 80% of the boys being born at the time, with potential loss of sensitivity (and medical complications) that only makes life better for 6 out of every 10,000 of them. Putting things in perspective changed my viewpoint from that day forward.
2. The same guy (and I think it's because he was a thinker, but relentless, and coming at thinking from a concrete POV, challenging me in an area I'm not as good at) also pushed me on my spiritual faith. I was already cycling through long periods of existential doubt and my faith was never stable. I was operating under the assumption that, at some level, all of my spiritual beliefs could be rationally proven somehow, and thus build on solid evidence. But he never let up, and his sheer, concrete rationalism forced me down, down, down to the very core of my beliefs and their foundation... and I realized that there was an uncrossable gap there (similar to Kierkegaard's) that rationality could not bridge. I could never "prove" my beliefs to myself or another person, instead there was a gap I could only cross by faith... and if I never took the risk to use faith to cross it, I would never believe. Thus, he showed me the limit of my intellect in some areas of life.
He didn't even realize he did this, or that he left me in a severe existential depression from which my old way of viewing the world never recovered. It took me some months to get through that experience, and then start to rebuild... but seeing the world very differently.
A few other notes:
1. Aside from rational arguments, I'm also a self-teacher. So someone can say something on one topic, but then I'll apply it across the map in my own belief structure and end up making profound changes when they weren't even saying something very profound for them, or a big deal to them.
2. Our arguments also impacted the guy I described above, winning him over on some points, and that rarely happened with him. I think it's because he never really much considered a more conceptual T perspective + intuition (he was so concrete). We were both different that we forced each other into new territory. But those arguments were still pretty painful to me, because I don't much like relentless conflict, even if I can appreciate them now.
3. I can't tell you how OTHER people respond. Typically, I don't see such arguments as having much impact. It depends on the perspective of the person: If they are someone who challenges themselves and their own thinking, then they'll grow from the experience. But if they are just the sort who is scared/stubborn to change and has a lack of intellectual honesty, then they'll just defend themselves and not really process the challenge.