Is there generally less resistance when you build up the opposite case and dismantle it before the adversaey has a chance to present the same information/case?
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Or helping the get to the best case possible then dismantling it
-
Or helping the get to the best case possible then dismantling it
A case of what? Case of beer? It's this a home brewing question?
-
Or helping the get to the best case possible then dismantling it
I usually bring up their main talking points when writing such as "opponents /proponens of xyz claim/say/believe thing, however" I'm not sure about a direct or timed/structured debate, as I'm not experienced with that.
-
Or helping the get to the best case possible then dismantling it
Your question is a little unclear.
If you're talking about a debate, or needing to approach someone about something, it's best to go in as prepared as possible and address any new arguments as they come.
However, the other person has to feel like they're being heard, understood, and (often) validated in some form—even if it's not completely genuine—if there is ever a chance of getting them to change their mind.
If this is a personal (or professional) conflict, though, be careful. To some people, it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, even if they're in the wrong.
-
Your question is a little unclear.
If you're talking about a debate, or needing to approach someone about something, it's best to go in as prepared as possible and address any new arguments as they come.
However, the other person has to feel like they're being heard, understood, and (often) validated in some form—even if it's not completely genuine—if there is ever a chance of getting them to change their mind.
If this is a personal (or professional) conflict, though, be careful. To some people, it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, even if they're in the wrong.
Definitely would be a different tack if it was a personal thing, I suppose i mean more in terms of official conflicts and records
