3 ways to win an argument
First, let me define what is for me winning an argument and what is not. Is creating a dialog from which I will learn something new and maybe give the other one the same opportunity and is not me proving I am right.
If your definition is similar and maybe more if it's not I invite you to continue reading this post.
I've though more about this subject Saturday morning when I've read a sponsored post from an NGO I appreciate very much about the local authorities refusing them the democratic rights to speak in a city-hall meeting.
A man I knew nothing about disagree with the post as he considered that is no commercial scope behind it so it must be paid by obscure societies wanting to harm our nation. I felt like I cannot leave this kind of thinking without reply but I though how to do it so it won't create a major fracture. And I found this 3 rules I have to apply when arguing.
1. Feel, for one moment, how it is to be in the shoes of the other person. Or ask more if you cannot do this
As I said before, I knew nothing about this person. I had only 20 words so I've tried to make some suppositions. First, he considers only rich and powerful people to have enough money to sponsor facebook campaigns. Second, he supports the current political party running Romania. This were two very important things to take in consideration in my reply for him as I knew that if I say something bad about the ones he consider entitle to run I won't move anything and that he knows little about alternatives on raising money besides powerful people buying NGOs.
if I would have no information to make suppositions I would have asked him more details so his argument would make sense for me and I could build on top of it.
2. Believe in the good intention
This is a rule I try to apply in all my connections, not only when arguing. I choose to believe that the person in front of me wants also the best and his opinion is based on the information he has, which might or might not be the correct ones (the same with mine). So what I'm trying to do is to give facts, verified information, clear and easy to digest.
3. Remain polite and leave the argument if you don't receive the same
I never throw judgmental opinions and I'm always polite when arguing. I don't make a purpose from convincing the other person that I am right. I remain open to have my opinion change and I am more interesting in developing a real conversation with some food for thoughts from both sides that to hear that I was right.
When people reaction is a less polite one I know is about them, not about me. The lack of logical argument and the feeling they are losing control is making them react with verbal (let's hope only verbal) aggressive. At that point I stop, I thank him if that conversation really gave me something new and I close the discussion/ I leave.
I never reply back with disrespect because that reaction would be about me and my lack of logical arguments.
Result
Putting this together what I've built my answer on 2 pillars.
- people donate for this NGO, people like me considering that the power comes with a lot of responsibility and this NGOs initiative is a control of how the local authorities accomplish this responsibilities.
- no matter our political view, we all want to live in a better place, in a cleaner city with good infrastructure and services. And it's my choice to support an organization with enough economical skills to see any kind of discrepancy and to raise awareness on it.
I had no expectation on the reply from this person, I just hoped that my calm and polite answer will trigger something similar.
And it did: He answered that he accepts the explanation on the source of the money even if he don't really understands the purpose of it and cannot agree with the activity.
For me, this was a win and I stopped there as there was very poor signal and I did not want to spend my weekend in the mountains on Facebook.
Both of us learned something and I know that no great change comes immediately (remember cognitive dissonance) but that I've managed to give some piece of correct information to someone not having it and he accepted.
What are your arguments about? Being right or building a dialog?
pictures sorce: www.pixabay.com


Reaching common ground or at least some understanding is what we should be striving for most of the time... but dayum it feels good to butt heads from time to time!

As long as we are aware that is our own need to be superior and this really means we feel we are not:))
Took a while for me to figure all this out
Congrats you did:) you have a lot of arguments to get into in the future :D
Thanks for the article, I agree with you. However, being right sometimes is not enough for some individuals. You have to prove your point via dialog, otherwise they won't recognize your argument.
It shouldn't be enough. It's a dialog, it's also about listening and about using a language the other will understand
I have to argue all the time in my work, and not always for the sake of dialogue. When there's too much at stake, victory is having something done my way which often means convincing the other party.
Why is your work a battle field and not a collaboration place?
Is that a genuine question or an implication I am doing it wrong? =)
You can't let business people make decisions about education, but that's what happens. It's not quite so bad in my place, but I know a few who literally have to fight their higher ups to negate something stupid or to push for a good reform.
:)