Hypothetically and heuristically, in even the most extreme policy disagreements(that are macro enough), is one better served avoiding direct argument(s) and instead influencing indirectly to make(and or prove beyond a reasonable doubt) the point? Why? How?
My answer: Yes because humans, for whatever reason, are, at least as a rule of thumb, bound to be less charismatic to their disagreers, especially as the issues get more contentious. Especially if the party about to argue truly desires something from the opposition.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts
More Alexander Ohnemus's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions