Standard argumentation guides fail because opponents are often unwilling to engage factually
Evidence
I have the impression that you can find a lot of things online and in books that are supposed to help you – but these are mostly argumentation guides from philosophy, which first assume that the other side has any interest at all in a factual, substantive discussion. Some of the recommendations that one comes across in this way also seem quite manipulative to me. If I were on the opposite side and, for example, someone constantly asked me to justify my position by asking questions, but was not prepared to take a stand himself, then I would very quickly break off the conversation. — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 7
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the Socratic questioning technique literature and to my interest in persuasion versus manipulation tactics. — connects to: The act of public deliberation outweighs its actual argumentative content in easing conflict — Jürgen Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the…, 78; Refraining from argument can yield more analytic insight than winning debate — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 1863
- SEED: Could become an article on why ‘gotcha’ questioning and debate-style tactics backfire in real conversations about deeply held beliefs.
Related
- Having better arguments and better manners does not win disputes (similarity 0.83)
- Not every disagreement requires convincing the other side to achieve value (similarity 0.78)