What I meant was that good or bad faith, the problem is a failure in communication.
Hold that thought... I actually want to address this later, but you put it at the start of the post.
I was presuming some degree of good faith. If someone is just deliberately arguing in bad faith, no amount of advice will matter.
Well, that's my point, though. We have this thought that "bad faith" applies only to deliberate, willful choice, when in reality it doesn't. You can be yammering along, thinking you are a bright, alert, and open minded part of a discussion, when
you don't realize that you really are not.
I spend a huge amount of time teaching at companies and teaching conflict resolution between cultures. The principles are largely the same. Repeatedly insisting that other people accept your argument (note, generic you here) will virtually never work.
It’s always best practices to step back and reframe, rather than keep hammering the same point over and over.
I totally agree with the practical matter that hammering on the same point over and over will not work.
But, the issue may not be a "failure of communication". Thinking of it that way includes the assumption that if you succeed at communication, the people you are speaking with will accept your statements/proposals. This is not generally true. You can be perfectly successful at communicating your points, but still be rejected.
Specifically, reframing can sometimes save you from flawed presentation - if you presented using spurious logic, or in a way that pushed emotional buttons, reframing can be key. But reframing usually will not (and should not) save you if your root premise is flawed or outright false.
In a simple example that actually happens - if you come to me with an argument that the Earth is flat, you can be perfectly good at communicating your thoughts on the matter, so that I understand what you are saying. But, I will never agree with your argument, because you are just factually incorrect. No reframing will change that.
Similarly, but hopefully more relevant for our purposes - on this site there are loads of times when people try to argue what amounts to, "game style X is best." That premise is flawed, in that it attempts to apply objective classification to a subjective matter. This will not change with reframing of the argument. The actual semantic content of the premise has to change (for example, by adding qualifiers) before you can expect it to be acceptable.
