Why are so many people in the internet so pig-headed, and unable to even slightly budge from their clearly incorrect viewpoints when presented with evidence that they shoot down with no conradicting evidence that isn't their own opinion?

1. An anonymous person has nothing to lose in admitting ignorance.

Wait, nevermind.

Even try to say that you two will never agree and you'll still get shot down, oddly enough, on the Internet. At least, in my experience.

Because, to every side, all others are wrong.

Except in this case. For you are right with few exceptions. Wait...so you are wrong? But only slightly...but if you are wrong at all, then your statement still holds, and it appears that we have a paradox!

Mostly because rational truth-seekers cannot agree to disagree.

I'd agree with you, but I have a hard time calling most of the internet "rational truth seekers". A particular troll I was talking to once (I didn't know he was a troll until it was kind of too late) actively admitting to only barely reading my posts, and disagreeing with random words.

Yes, well I was referring more to those who actually are, those who would bother to "agree to disagree", rather than the typical troll response of simply not caring.

Probably because of dogmatism in their minds.

True, but there are even more groups asking for a "Dislike" button or some other feature. There are even more groups on personal things like "Mrs. Bach is the worst teacher ever!!!!!!!!" ... There are even more groups on general well-known things like "Lady Gaga," "Richard Dawkins," etc. Then there are the groups that are statements: "I love how in English you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway" or "OMG Britney spears had tWINs!!!!" or " I'm finally over you... wait, did you just smile at me? ....shit" ...

It is because every person has its personal views and they don't have courage to express in front of others physically that's why they choose internet.

Relative to the 'statement groups' the change was practically welcomed. I think it's important to point out that people aren't necessarily adverse to change, but more to the risk of the unknown. Would it be safe to say that change brings knowledge (or rather, the unknown does), and knowledge brings fear?

Maybe knowledge brings fear at first, due to the rapidly expanding unknown (the more you know, the more you know you don't know), but with more knowledge, the fear begins to subside and beauty emerges.