When you disagree with someone and decide to engage in a dialogue to prove your point?

Question

How do you go about?

Answer 1

I don't like to argue, I prefer to discuss. I try to understand the other person's side, and help them understand mine. Instead of "you're wrong because...", I say things like "I feel this way because..." and try to explain why I feel the way I do. I don't necessarily need to change the other person's mind (let's face it, that is probably not going to happen no matter what you say), mostly I'm just hoping they'll be able to understand where I'm coming from and respect my point of view.

Answer 2

There are two main camps in this issue. One is to use logic and the other emotion. Emotion is the most effective persuader but the least reliable to trust.

If you are dealing with religious zealots, the accepted form is to use their own beliefs to justify what you believe. This is fine if you are steeped in their beliefs but sometimes difficult otherwise.

The master of twisting peoples beliefs against themselves may have been Socrates. Plato was a student of Socrates and formalized his methods into modern formal logics. Aristotle was taught by Plato but emphasized methods of engaging the listeners attention and winning peoples hearts so they want to believe. It is Aristotle's work that modern advertising is founded on.

The logical approach appeals to our left brains and the emotional the right. Arguments that appeal to both will perhaps work best in the long run if your ideas make sense.

If you are pushing a religious line, that doesn't hold up to logical analysis, Plato's logical approach should be avoided but Socrates method of twisting their beliefs against themselves may work, but might just annoy them.

Dale Carnegie's approach is perhaps the most effective. His approach was to listen to what the person had to say and what they wanted and make them happy, thus making them like you. Once people like you you can sell them anything including ideas, they would otherwise disagree with.

-----------

It is also important to know what rules of engagement the listener is used to using in arguments. If someone uses logic against you they likely will expect a logical refutation, rather than an emotional appeal.

Fanatics, Mystics, Philosopher and Scientists all have different mothods of seeking wisdom.

Science is based on not using appeals to God or blind faith for explanations of the universe. It also tries to avoid subjectiove experience.

Mystics concentrate on the subjective to seek knowledge. Budhism is sometimes described as a mystical science of experience, where experiments are made on how best to achieve subjective happiness.

Philosophers try thought experiments, where they ask what if ...

E.g. If Christianity is true would God really condemn sinners to a firey pit. How did God come to be? If logical inconsistencies are found then philosophers will seek alternate explanations.

Scientists will look for alternate explanations if physical experiments do not match a belief.

Mystics will seek alternate ideas if the ones they have don't work for them.

Fanatics usually follow a set of beliefs handed to them. Showing inconsistencies in those beliefs, is less effective than undermining the reliability of the teachers of the belief.

Often you also need to give a face saving way that the person can adopt your ideas without beeing seen as backing down.

Ken Ham for example is a nemisis of mine. Engaging him front on will likely get him to dig his toes in further.

I would point out how my ideas can help promoite his own. I would start by emphasizing what we believed in common and how his ideas might be wrong in some particulars but the essense of what he believes is essentially correct are upheld by evidence I have obtained.

Asking him to make small concessions to support his key ideas, may work better than pointing out where he is wrong in a confrontational manner.

Answer 3

A lot of women do not like being logical in arguments, they use emotions instead, so u gotta be logical but also look at the emotional side of it. If its a guy just be perfectly logical and straight forward :)

Answer 4

I try to debate civilly, but sometimes you can't do that because the other person won't.  I have standards I won't cross, but I'll get a little dirty in a debate if I have to.

Answer 5

State realistic facts and logical reasoning by using intelligent sentences with educated words, I suppose.

Answer 6

logically, i suppose.

Answer 7

By choosing your words carefully

Answer 8

I pick apart as many parts of their argument as I can, keep my language as neutral as possible, and avoid personal attacks.

Answer 9

yes.well yea.

Answer 10

I pick the thing that is most important to resolve and focus on that issue.  I explain my point and then ask for their buy in.  That way the priority gets established early in the conversation and it doesn't turn into a personal assault.

Answer 11

I usually try to find some common ground and explain to them the positive aspects of what I am trying to do.

Answer 12

Well first, for me, it depends on if it's on the internet or not. I take forums like this with a grain of salt. I come here looking for some answers and hopefully giving some insight but I find it's pointless to try and prove your point on the internet when people don't agree with. You can't tell someone's tone or body language so it makes it hard to relate to then and effectively communicate your point. Usually, depending on the person I find it enjoyable to push their buttons.

In person, I'm very empathetic. I relate well to others so I try to look at things from their point first. Then I try to take a step back, breathe and calmly start over on my explanation in a way that is informative but not patronizing. I lay out my information, my reasoning behind disagreeing with them and my evidence for such. If in the end it still doesn't work then I call it a day and hope for better luck next time.

Answer 13

I usually say a premise and then give them some time to respond and then i respond to what they said, if they just want to be a loud mouth and keep rambling or interrupt me and or rude i don't bother arguing with them and avoid any topic which would lead to arguing because for the most part i know and understand both sides of the issues and don't need some knee-jerk yelling ideology at me

Answer 14

Words.

Answer 15

Stay calm, take your time to think what you want to say, don't be insulting, and don't be insulted.  Use facts instead of opinions, don't repeat yourself - and good luck! :-)