What is the point of freedom of speech?

Now, I'm libertarian on free speech.  I think all political speech (from burning the US flag to openly supporting the KKK) should be legal and I believe a business should not treat you worse based on your beliefs unconditionally.

With that being said, I believe the freedom of speech is pretty much pointless; it's fun, but it's pretty much pointless.  Freedom of speech is only as useful as the ability of you to change the person's mind that you are talking too.

Lets say you are pro life and you are talking to the CEO of planned parenthood about abortion.  You can scream, "Abortion is murder." all you want; it's not going to stop them from performing abortions.  Just like on the opposite side; a hardcore pro choice activist can call Lila Rose a traitor to her gender all they want and they can say, "Abortion is healthcare" all they want, it's not going to change Lila Rose's mind on abortion.

Now me, I pride myself on being a sick individual; I try and have a half open half closed mind to all ideologies; from communism to Nazism (and everything in between).  If someone defends pedophilia, then I don't hate them; but I take their arguments and I wrestle with them rather than insult them for having an opinion pretty much everyone else is strongly against.  I respect BestKorea for doing the same.

But I've learned that I am the exception rather than the rule, even on this debating website.  You think Roosevelt is ever going to become a Trump supporter or become a right winger?  You think Dr. Franklin is ever going to become a left winger?  If either of these situations happen, then it will almost certainly take years for it to happen.

And lets say hypothetically, in the very rare instance that you are able to change someone's mind on a certain issue (abortion as an example [which may happen 5% of the time] ) lets say you are pro choice (I'm using this opinion because it's majoritarian; if you are pro life, then substitute that belief instead) and you are living in Texas (where abortion is banned).  Lets say you get in an argument with a pro lifer and (spontaneously) you change their mind on abortion legalization.  You've flipped one person on your position; abortion will still be banned in that state; you probably won't even get one person who previously voted for Abbott to vote for the democrat, because abortion is one of many issues people vote on, and it is virtually impossible for a fully grown adult to change their mind on enough issues to vote the way you want them too (even if you flip them on one or two issues).  What will it take for Roosevelt to become pro life and vote for Trump(or for Dr. Franklin to become pro choice and vote against him)?  

The answer is probably nothing realistic.

Both of these people I believe are not willing to change their mind on even a single issue, therefore there is no point in me engaging with these 2 people on any political issue (and honestly, I believe the same is true for probably most people on DART).

There is no point in exercising my right to free speech to these people, because what's the end result?  People have parties to stick too; and if Trump says, "We need to do X about Y", then it doesn't matter what X and Y are (unless the parties have already established their claims on the issue), Dr. Franklin will agree with it and Roosevelt will disagree with it.

If Richard Spencer says, "The X are Y", then a lot of people think he's crazy.  He would be crazy if X was, "Blacks" and Y was, "r@ping white women".  But if X is, "Clouds" and Y is, "raining water", then he might be correct.

The content of what you say matters more than the person saying it.

But most people on this site are unwilling to change their minds, so there is no point in engaging with them on political issues I think.

If I respond to someone whose mind I believe is unchangeable, then it's for my entertainment and the entertainment of those reading it.  That's going to be my new plan.

99% of arguments aren't going to change anyone's mind (at least not at that moment). But most people will change their mind on something at some point, and it will probably be due to something they heard from someone else or from the media. Freedom of speech mainly matters in the aggregate; one pro-gun argument is unlikely to change minds, but if no one is allowed to make a pro-gun argument, less people will adopt that position. Despite being mostly useless, arguing all the time every day will probably change someone's mind on something eventually. There's a reason the CCP (and probably other countries) pays people to argue online.

Adult people rarely change their minds.

The point of arguing is not "to convince adults", but to convince young minds, the future minds.

Of course, even young minds rarely change their mind, but a bit more often than adults, and where opinion starts is important.

So one thing is clear: every offspring inherits a good amount of values from parents and society.

The more the person fights to spread his values, the more his values will be spread onto new generations.

We can see that the world did have ideological change. Compare 1950 to today.

In 1950, LGBT was much more oppressed, much less free. Most people promoted open hate towards gays. There were even prison punishments for LGBT at some point.

Today, most people support LGBT rights. So we could say thats a significant change from before, a complete abandonment of old values by society.

So yes, society changes, just very slowly, so slowly that its difficult to even notice sometimes.

But it changes slowly exactly because there are plenty of people on opposite sides arguing for opposite things.

If free speech was banned, and only one side was allowed to talk, quickly they would spread their idea throughout society and they would dominate.

But because there is free speech, there is more competition between ideas, and society changes slowly instead of suddenly.

This is true, and there is definitely a place for the first amendment.  But if I personally never talk politics again, then I know other people will do it on my behalf.

This is true, but lets say you are in CA (a sanctuary state) and you are pro ICE; someone else is anti ICE.  You actually succeed in changing their mind.  Did it change immigration policy in CA?  No.  You've changed one mind out of 40 million Californians.

People are much smaller than they realize, so if you argue, it should be for recreation.

That took 70 years to accomplish.  Like lets say in 2120, the age of consent is abolished nationwide.  You won't benefit from that unless you are alive in 2120.

The age of consent abolishment advocacy that you do will only help people that are strangers to you.

Yeah; there is a place for free speech, but lets say there are 53,278 people in the US that believe the age of consent should be abolished and are very vocal about it (including yourself).  You decide it's not worth the effort and you quit.  Now it's 53,277 people; pretty much the same.