You can only go as high on that scale as your opponent did. For example, you can’t refute the central point of an insult or an attempt at shaming without missing the point that it is simply meant to make you angry or meant to make others completely disregard you. Similarly, if the “argument” is incoherent babbling, you don’t refute it so much as point out that it’s nonsensical.
Non Violent Communication (NVC) might be effective in some of those situations. Basically reflecting back the needs behind the chosen words or way they are said.
True, but seeing it laid out like this can at least help you to realise why you’re not able to have a reasonable debate with someone in a particular topic. and even be able to call them out on it.
Whether they listen or not, it can at least save you some time and cut the conversation off shorter than you may otherwise do
You can only go as high on that scale as your opponent did. For example, you can’t refute the central point of an insult or an attempt at shaming without missing the point that it is simply meant to make you angry or meant to make others completely disregard you. Similarly, if the “argument” is incoherent babbling, you don’t refute it so much as point out that it’s nonsensical.
Here’s a good article about debate and meta-debate.
Long article - awkward beginning - very worth reading through. Thanks.
Non Violent Communication (NVC) might be effective in some of those situations. Basically reflecting back the needs behind the chosen words or way they are said.
True, but seeing it laid out like this can at least help you to realise why you’re not able to have a reasonable debate with someone in a particular topic. and even be able to call them out on it. Whether they listen or not, it can at least save you some time and cut the conversation off shorter than you may otherwise do