Again, not what I asked.
Hypothetical 1: You think so because when you were in high-school, you were laughed at. Look at the facts!
Hypothetical 2: You think it's faulty equipment because it failed last time you had it. Your logic is flawed.
Hypothetical 3: You're not using it because you had a hard time using it when you tried it for half an hour!
Hypothetical 4: The fact that you've spend money and worked on the chimney doesn't mean that the neighbor, who also owns it, can't touch it.
Your hypothetical situations are not things I consider worth debating.
Using #2, 'this is broken because it didn't work last time I used it.' My response would be, 'what about it is broken?' or, 'let's see if it actually is broken.'
My first thought would be to work through the problem side-by-side with someone, not debate their reasoning with them.
This forum is about the only place I get into (a small amount of)debate. Being able to tolerate and discuss viewpoints with people without getting into representational argument is much more productive.
Tell yourself that other people are ignorant and stupid if you wish, but it's my experience that people in general are quick to understand, accept and build upon my thoughts and ideas, because I'm willing to do the same for them.
If I want to convince 20 other business consultants, all with their own personalities and ideas for the direction of the business, that my idea is technically sound, profitable long-term, is ethical and benefits the people in the company from maintenance workers to the CEO, it's not going to happen if I debate with people about their reasons as opposed to their outcomes. Even then, consultation is often the most effective method. A two-way exchange of ideas, where the goal is the best outcome possible.
As for the, 'wasting $2,000', the same thing applies. I would consult people before making a financial decision. Why would I potentially reduce the input I receive from others, by alienating them with a representation argument? I would prefer as much information as possible to sift through and come up with the best answer. I mostly listen, not speak.
And just to relate it to financial decisions that I make on a daily basis, my thinking is more along the lines of wasting $200,000 than $2,000. Which is probably why I've developed an appreciation for teamwork and peer input beyond most - the stakes of my financial decisions are much higher. Especially when I take into account that my pay-scaling is 100% performance based, over a period of time my continued ability to build and maintain friendships and continue to solicit genuine and useful advice or information from people around me will greatly impact my own financial status.
And what I use for business I apply the same methods to my personal life as well. I much prefer consulting and building based on the overall big picture outcome, than debating over a few points that, even if I turn out to be right, haven't necessarily improved anyone's quality of life or helped solve a problem.
Maybe it's because of what I've learned partly out of necessity to achieve my goals over the years, but I naturally turn my thoughts to large-scale ideas that impact a large amount of people or are fundamental to our knowledge of how things work. I really don't even consider arguments about the things you've given examples of as, 'debate' - just petty quibbling.
