The most profound misunderstanding about workplace and online arguments is this: if you have a problem that can be settled with dispassionate logic, *you don't end up in an argument in the first place*. You end up in a brainstorming meeting.
Conflict is inherently social. It's a spectator sport. Peacocks showing off their plumage, if you will.
You don't win with facts and logic. You prevail by picking battles wisely, making concessions where possible, and helping both sides save face. If you can't do that, better carry a big stick.
@lcamtuf
I like the overall shape of the argument, but there is a lot happening in "can be settled" beyond just questions of logical decidability.
For example, the willingness of the two parties to even consider logic in the first place, a consideration needed to explain why flat earth discussions persist despite the empirical question being settled.
