Within a Coalescent argument, versus a combative, adversarial, zero sum argument, there are ways to effectively resolve the issue.
Principles for effective resolution
1 A party who advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it. That comes from the purpose of the interaction. The whole point of the interaction is that the person making the initial statement is trying to make a point. When they have made it, they are expected to say more about it if asked.
2 A party's attack (“attack” in arguing is not warlike, it is simply questioning the point in question) must relate to the standpoint that has been advanced. Respond to the argument that is being made not bring in a new one. Not a misrepresentation of what was said. No attacking the person, just clarifying the point and questioning if the point is inherently valid and applicable.
3 A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point. Disagreements are based on agreements. If you do not agree on anything, you cannot have a healthy disagreement or discussion.
4 A failed defense of a standpoint must result in retracting it. You have an obligation to retract your original position if the position (your point) is proven to be false.
Arguments go wrong if we are heavily invested in winning or having the other party see it "my way." Or if there is an emphasis on ego and self identity. They struggle if there are logical fallacies- straw men and red herrings; absolutes (never, always); if there is something that is sacrosanct( beyond the pale of examination). Within the world of healthy arguments, no topic or idea is forever off the examination table. Social power and skill levels may be different and that makes good arguments more challenging.
Goal: When we argue, I would like us to be more in line with ideal for effective arguing so that we improve our chances of resolving things.