![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
asher553I try to avoid approaching debates from a partisan perspective, i.e. "You Democrats such-and-such", for purely tactical reasons. People form attachments to their party, no matter if it's a stupid party (like the Democrats) or a slightly less stupid party (like the Republicans). Attack the party and you're attacking them, and quite naturally they respond accordingly; you won't get any reasoned persuasion done in such a conversation. The same goes for Presidents - if he's "your President", he represents you. (I don't think people usually form the same relationship with lower level officials, unless it's an especially charismatic person.)
Generally, too, I find it's better not to over-argue - just present the facts, and let the other person draw their own conclusions. People like to make up their own minds, and they trust an idea more if they've come to it themselves.
Very rarely will I get into a direct, point/counterpoint - type debate. I only do these if I know I'm on solid factual and logical ground, and that I can demonstrate to the other person where their information or their reasoning is faulty. But those cases are few and far between - very much the exception to the rule.
Generally, too, I find it's better not to over-argue - just present the facts, and let the other person draw their own conclusions. People like to make up their own minds, and they trust an idea more if they've come to it themselves.
Very rarely will I get into a direct, point/counterpoint - type debate. I only do these if I know I'm on solid factual and logical ground, and that I can demonstrate to the other person where their information or their reasoning is faulty. But those cases are few and far between - very much the exception to the rule.
