These are techniques I use when I engage in a volatile discussion. Whether I'm corresponding via voice or print they have served me well. I intend to use the current most sensitive subject in America as an example but these were born of discussions on a variety of topics.
I've purposely avoided the term "debate". That word implies, to me, a structured exchange of words and ideas between people well informed on a topic. Arguments occur between people or groups on any topic at any time. They can be structured as in a court of law but more often they're spontaneous and participated in by folks who may or may not have any intimate understanding of the subject.
I won't presume to try to instruct anyone about how to communicate with another person. If I use "you" in this diary please assume that I'm speaking to myself. These are, essentially, notes to myself that I use to prepare for difficult conversations. I present them here in the hope that I might learn from your own experience and expertise.
When I am involved in a voice communication I take turns and gently, but repeatedly if necessary, insist that everyone involved in the discussion does the same. When I speak I will frequently pause during a sentence to fetch the word I wish to use or for emphasis of one sort or another. Others will often use that moment to take the floor. The most egregious will blatantly talk over another. It seems like common courtesy and common sense but this basic rule is ignored almost every time a discussion evolves into an argument.
Arguing is not a contact sport. Indeed it is not a sport at all despite a propensity for people to try to assign points to award for well-phrased sentiments or to declare a winner or loser.
That last sentence is a bit of digression. Using one's hands in conversation can be an eloquent method for illustrating a thought but can also be a reason for one's audience to stop listening. This is difficult to describe in print. A palm-up, thumb-out, "giving" gesture when you are responding to a comment is one that can be used help let your audience know that you have listened to what they've said. A palm-down, fingers-spread gesture is more of a command ("calm down") and is rarely useful. Of course, a pointed finger or dismissive palm will completely shut down any meaningful exchange.
Again, that was digression so I'll return to the first sentence and a primary rule: no touching. I'll back out of reach if someone attempts to put their hand on my shoulder or anywhere when I'm engaged in an argument. I won't stop the discussion but I make it clear that touching is out of bounds. This doesn't apply to "normal" or non-volatile discussions in my opinion. I'm certainly not adverse to human contact. Some folks are uncomfortable with that, however, and it is best to get to know other folks rather well before letting yourself react by touching another even in response to humor.
I've learned to avoid metaphors. In every single instance I've used them or observed them used they obfuscate the topic and are frequently turned on their heads to the advantage of no one. Guns are not cars or screwdrivers or anything but guns. I will avoid using a metaphor against someone who employs one but I will call attention to the fallacy of metaphor.
Control the temperature of the conversation. This is a delicate art. Be passionate without being condescending. A point of view presented in a dispassionate manner is often interpreted as a lecture. I run the risk of just that sort of interpretation with these very words but hopefully we're not having an argument here. A vehement response is almost always dismissed as poorly thought through. Neither will engage the participants well.
Emotion is difficult to convey in print accurately and is very often misinterpreted. Body language and facial expression are critical elements of emotional display. Those are missing in print and I find that I need more words to convey a simple emotional statement in print than I would use in a face-to-face conversation. Emoticons are poor substitutes for real words. I will say what I mean and try to be aware that my audience can't see the twinkle (or fire) in my eyes. I'm guilty of over-using emoticons in casual correspondence according to those with whom I do that. I'm workin' on it. ;-}
"Talking points" and "name-calling" are not helpful. For example, I try not to use the phrase "gun control". Instead, I say or write "firearm regulation". It is marginally less inflammatory but that tiny margin can mean much when emotions are running hot. Clearly pejorative terms serve only to inflame and not to inform or influence. Terms such as "teabagger" or "libtard" should, in my opinion, be completely stricken from our lexicon.
Know when to stop writing or speaking and get out of the argument. I try to do it with grace and no concern for saving face. It doesn't matter if I've made my points or swayed an opinion or have been influenced. If the argument is over for whatever reason then it is done. This is another delicate art and I certainly cannot say that I'm always successful at knowing where that particular boundary lies. Sometimes it is obvious but more often I rely on experience and intuition.
Proofread! Five times minimum. Spelling counts as does grammar and repetition of a particular word or phrase. When I proofread this diary I found no less than a dozen instances of some form of "engage". Perfection is unattainable except for poets (and wordsmith savants such as Crashing Vor) but I'm never sorry that I repeatedly read and edit what I write before sending or posting. Doing so in haste and skipping that step has resulted in embarrassment at best and, at worst, caused unnecessary lasting harm.
The preceding paragraphs are paraphrases and expansions of a shorthand list that I keep handy. I hope you find them useful and I look forward to your own thoughts and words on the topic.