Perhaps, but you suggested there was fault to be found with my argument.

I'm not sure as to how I'm supposed to challenge the challenge to my challenge without being “confrontational” as you call it and point out the faults with the argument.

> I'm not sure as to how I'm supposed to challenge the challenge to my challenge without being “confrontational” as you call it and point out the faults with the argument.

This is a hard problem, and a difficult lesson to learn. I know it took me a while, and I'm still bad at it.

I find it helps to make your points, while trying to maintain a pleasant tone (Easier said than done, and I'm not a good person to teach this). I also find it helps to add questions asking for either other peoples opinions or clarifications on their position, as that helps show that you're not just talking, but also listening.

Edit: Also, the largest part for me at least is to remember that an attack on your argument is not a personal attack against you. I've had issues with doing this my whole life, and am still working on it.

> Perhaps, but you suggested

I did not.

Interesting, how many books have you read on the topic of confrontation vs argumentation? I think you need at least two to have a sufficient background to discuss the concept.

No, one doesn't, actually.

Only if one makes a claim about what is generally written in such books.