I sometimes argue, because I feel an inner compulsion to do so — maybe as a kind of performance art — but I've given up on trying to change anyone's mind.

I spent years as a graduate student in a philosophy PhD program, and what I found is that, essentially, no professional philosopher changes any other professional philosopher's mind about anything important, ever. We're just endlessly arguing. Intelligently, usually respectfully arguing, but accomplishing nothing, getting nowhere. And philosophers are supposed to be, at least nominally, the most "rational" among us.

This is not to say that philosophers never change their minds: they occasionally do. But not as a result of arguing! It's usually more self-correction than other-correction.

I think it's better to read books than to argue. There's less personal ego involved, because you can "engage" with the author of a book in a way that's not like a sporting event. There's no winner and loser. You don't have to admit to the author that you were wrong, because you never even have to talk to the author, and the author will probably never even know that you read the book. You're almost forced to argue with yourself in this situation. You can change your own mind even if you can't change other minds.