The argument you should lose

There is a question worth asking before any disagreement: what would change my mind?

If the answer is nothing, the position being defended is not a conclusion. It may be an identity, a loyalty or a habit, all of which are legitimate things to have and none of which is improved by argument. Noticing this early saves a great deal of time, because arguments between two positions that cannot be moved are not discussions; they are performances, usually for an audience, sometimes for the self.

If the answer is something specific — a figure, a study, an example you have not seen — then the disagreement is real and can make progress. Stating that answer aloud at the start changes the character of the exchange immediately, because it commits you in advance. It is uncomfortable for exactly that reason, and the discomfort is the point: a person who has said what would persuade them can be persuaded in public without it looking like a defeat.

There is a second habit that travels with the first. Before replying, state the other position in a form they would accept. Not a weakened version — the strongest version you can construct, including the part you find most reasonable. If you cannot do this, you do not yet know what you are disagreeing with, and the reply you were about to give is aimed at something nobody said.

Both habits are slow and neither wins arguments in the ordinary sense. What they do is make it possible to be wrong without humiliation, which is the condition under which people actually change their minds.