Even better, listening and responding coherently to another argument can be a lot of fun. Providing both parties are doing it in good faith.

More listening, and with empathy, would be helpful for all of us, to be sure. And when listening, we need to focus on the "how" or "why" as much as the "what." But what if the person you're listening to drones on and on, and by the time they've finished their rant, you've not heard most of it, because of something they said early on that you found troublesome, needed to remember, and wanted to respond to?

A proper argument has a thesis, or main point, with supporting statements that can be analyzed for veracity. It is the supporting statements, or reasons, that must be unpacked before the thesis can be judged. Without a careful examination of the supporting statements, one might as well be engaging in a Monty Python skit: "This isn't an argument. It's just contradiction!"

I'm probably more guilty of this than I would like to believe althought I do try and listen to the other person's argument.

Of course listening is at least half of communication. Its also an interesting observation (it rings true) that the average person listens no more than 10 seconds before preparing a retort. However, when the argument goes on forever, there must be something more complicated happening. Presumably you eventually stop arguing and have time for analysis of what you heard.
As an example – with the current debate over guns. If you grew up with guns in your house, used them for hunting and never had a bad experience with an accident or a gun fired in anger, then you might feel emotionally attached to your guns to the point you ignore all the statistics that show guns are bad for society at large. On the other side, those of us who have never owned guns, who look at the statistics around the problems (e.g. who gets killed by assault rifles) simply get frustrated trying to reason with the other side. Communication is amazingly difficult in these situations.

I enjoy listening to Esther Perel on YouTube.

Sounds like the political spectrum. And a coworker.

Walk away

I disagree. The "arguments that never end" are the result of a person who wants to hold onto a problem or issue forever so that they have a aweapon to try to club you over the head with it.

This is often noticeable in people who barely let you finish sentence before giving their opinion on something, which, had they listened in the first instance, might have resulted in them giving a more appropriate or considered response or indeed a possible solution to a problem. If two people are yelling at each other or trying to talk over the top of one another, who is listening?

Depend on what they are arguing about. How fixed are they in their position or belief?

Trying to have a senseable discussion with some people is impossiable because after I listen they refuse to listen to my side sometimes after the first word.