After an emotionally charged exchanged with a loved one - be they friend, relative, or "other" - you can always be sure of two things:
1) The collective plural for octopus is "octopuses", not "octopi"
and
2) Someone will inevitably hurt someone else's feelings.
Under some circumstances, those frayed edges of emotions can be easily preserved, by either party recognising the minor suffering and withdrawing their position from the discussion (making sure their original point is still withstanding, it being the correct one and all).
The more common outcome, however, is to relentlessly and incessantly repeat your statement, enforcing it with emotionally-charged speculation, and other people's conveniently similar opinions, rather than solid facts.
*Side note: Facts can be your friend in an argument, often even rupturing the other persons position with infallible logic.
BUT BE WARNED; in exchanges regarding opinion and emotional (and often general) ignorance, facts may prove irrelevant, and the misplacement of facts could cause your side of the argument to crumble into obscurity when faced with the icy tundra of an emotionally-charged ignorant mind.*
There are several ways to win such arguments. The first and quite possibly the most simple technique is to berate your opponent with an onslaught of wild speculation, fortified by unnamed sources that have been said to agree with your chosen statement. All the while, make sure you maintain the illusion that you are, indeed, taking their side of the discussion on board. As their opinion is incorrect, however, feel free to interject their soliloquies of logic with repeated variations of your original statement.
In certain situations, your opponent may seem to start winning the exchange of intellect. This is when you use your secret weapon - Guilt.
Guilt can be used in a variety of ways. A simple execution of this move is to refer back to a time in which they were incorrect. Specific references aren't necessary, but if you can use examples of similar situations, that will aide your cause substantially.
This version of Guilt, though easy to implement, rarely weakens their stance on their own opinions, which is the real key to success in emotional discourse.
The best execution of the Guilt maneuver is to make your opponent feel sorry for you - or, more effectively, guilty for their actions and attempts to reason with you. The easiest way to achieve this would be to show how much you dislike yourself, making sure they understand that it is their fault for reminding you of such heinous thoughts. This technique also allows you to reference mistakes you've made yourself, taking away ammunition from their arsenal of condescension (the fact they've yet to use them against you should be a shinning example of their lackadaisical approach to the argument in the first place. Or that they may in fact have a conscience - something a vastly opinionated argumentor should never adhere to.)
Continue repeating these steps, ensuring to increase the levels of self-pity and, subsequently, guilt throughout, and you'll soon find your exhausted opponent erupting in unharnessed and explosive frustration (therefore leaving them vulnerable to logistical paradoxes, in which you can claim your opinions are facts, using their current outburst as "proof", and their new emotional state will prevent them from formulating a coherent reply).
Either that or they'll leave the room in fear of what their unbridled emotions may project.
In either situation, you may consider this a valiant win of prodigious proportions.
Follow these simples tips and you too can best those who wish to reason with you coherently!
