EFFECTIVELY RESOLVING ISSUES
AND NOT WASTING ENERGY NOR LOSING THE WHOLE ENCHILADA
EMOTIONAL REASONING, NO REASONING, OR SOLID REASONING
Just as "fact-based, logical" thinking, aka critical thinking, works best for one's personal situation, it also works best for negotiations, discussions and settling issues. The argument for "emotional reasoning", of course, is not strictly rational and therefore is not workable. Of course, emotions in humans are to be considered in the total equation, but that can only be done while in the higher brain. (So the right way to do it is inclusive, but in a way using the best tool for problem solving and decisionmaking.)
Presenting your evidence in a fair manner and offering a persuasive argument that is logical will create at least the chance of pulling the other person close to where you want him/her/them to be. And it is respectful and objective.
OPPOSITION IS "SUBTRACTIVE", NOT ADDING ANYTHING OF VALUE
All that is oppositional in its nature causes a grand cancellation of energy. Note that 10 units one direction against 11 unit the other direction only gain 1 unit one direction, for a total usage of 21 units of energy - now is that counter-effective or is that counter-effective? Duh!
If some way we are able to reduce the wasted opposition by using some better methods, then we could create the 21 units of energy producing, say, 10 net units. Wouldn't that be a worthwhile thing to do - to use that ""some better methods".
THE METHODS ALREADY EXIST AND ARE PROVEN TRIED AND TRUE
Well, guess what!
Many such methods have been devised.
We just need to use them.
Not just a few people, but as many as possible.
Even a bunch of muttering by people who haven't thought things out will embolden one side or the other to be irrational in their dogma. So we need to bring more facts out to the people involved. For instance, in politics it may serve the purpose of popularity and/or power to gin up conflict and make-wrong, but it is the ultimate in lack of ethics. Instead, if we could inject a conversation that is adequate to persuade, based on true facts, without the deception of leaving out facts on the other side, and logic we would make more "net progress", more "net units" forward (as in the example above).
HUMAN NATURE, RESPECT
First of all, we need to recognize human nature, the set of limitations and ways of operating that are included in our DNA and culture.
Next, we need to not use human nature as an excuse, but choose to manage it, with the highest power we have: the higher brain that has been developed - using its highest power, which is problems solving which can only be done by rational thinking (it's not rational to not seek the facts first!).
Part of this, to avoid the "sin" (= "bad aim") of hostility and of making the other person wrong, is to respect other humans for knowing what they know and for not being able to know more than they know. Humans, depending on how much time they've spent learning useful knowledge and how good the inputs are, will only learn good knowledge up to a certain point. They are not to be faulted for that, as that was simply the path that took place, instead of some wished for path that was better.
If someone started off with a family (or a culture or a peer group) that taught them incorrect information, then those people will be worse off in "good knowledge" If we were more fortunate, then we were simply more fortunate, as we are then likely to have nore "good knowledge", but not because we were "better than" the other people, as they were likely (except in true mental impairment) to have arrived at or near the place we would have arrived in "good knowledge", but because of the circumstances, It's quite like the saying "there but for the grace of God go I" - I am simplyt luckier in that way!
So humans are humans, and as far as the core human unit, no one unit is superior or inferior to the others, there is only different learning that has caused them each to get to a different place.
The point here is that we would best start from the position of respecting the other person (and their humanity and limitations). And that means respecting their position as a position that they have done their best to arrive at AND respecting the fact that they are limited in their knowledge - even respecting the error in their thinking. The problem is never the person, but it is the level of their knowledge. So the solution is never in diminishing the other person (the core human unit), but in somehow providing knowledg that will correct the lack of knowledge. Again, that would be with no rancor, no hositility, only true communication with facts and logic, and true consideration of the other human being (and the consideration need not be out of compassion, just out of "what works" - out of ethics).
USING NON-SENSICAL ARGUMENTS
And don't ever use the phrase "it's just common sense" or "everybody agrees and therefore it is..." Never of them are valid, persuasive arguments.
IF YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING PROGRESSIVE AND FORWARDING, DON'T SAY ANYTHING!
If you're not being progressive, you become part of the problem. If you were progressive, oriented toward solutions, nondefensive, respectful, and such, you would be in a problem solving mode and attempting to do "good" in this world. Anything else is what the ignorant do - and the create and perpetuate wars and fights and lots of lawsuits. Being other than progressive and solution oriented is toxic -and never to be done.
SET UP THE RULES AND THEN FOLLOW THEM
Anything that involves other than a quick easy negotiation, should have a process, a system, a set of rules to guide the negotiations so that they are productive. Anything otherwise is foolhardy and unproductive, usually.