How to argue the situation without losing friends

My Facebook is full of friends who argue with each other.  
yours too?

The truth is that it makes sense - the situation is stressful, people are killed, alarms, anxiety. And so do statements that sound reasonable every day - for example that civilians will be killed in a defensive war, or that civilians being killed is bad even if they are Arabs - become explosive.  

The situation has come to thatEven the breaks on our campus have become aggressive. I almost started to miss the days when fear of crowds prevented my students from yelling at each other (wars reduce crowd anxiety in our courses. My life).

So as a debate expert I want to tell you: it is possible to debate the situation without destroying friendships. And it works like this:

What does winning an argument look like?

To succeed in an argument, we need to understand what we want to achieve.  
Most people you ask will say that their goal is to convince the person in front of them. But if you listen to them carefully, you will find that most of them are more concerned with showing that they are right than with checking if the other side is convinced. In fact, very quickly the argument turns into a competition of who is the most right, and later who shouts the loudest. That's how unconvincing - that's how many.

To argue successfully you need to think in two steps: a. What do I want to achieve and b. how can i get it

What can be achieved in an argument?

As mentioned, most often the stated goal is to convince the interlocutor. But usually there is also the goal of venting frustration and anger on the other side, whom the interlocutor represents (and who in turn wants to vent his frustration on your side, which you represent).

To achieve one of these goals you have to separate them because it is almost impossible to achieve both together.

I usually recommend making an effort to get the other party to agree with us, and there are techniques of argument and the art of selling to do this. But in the current situation it is impossible to use them, because everyone is so charged that an honest intention to convince quickly turns into righteous frustration - and I won't pretend that it doesn't happen.

Arguing about feelings - the theory

To release frustration you need to talk about feelings and not about politics. Instead of saying 'how can you attack Israel when Hamas has been shooting at civilians for ten years' (and receiving an answer of 'because we killed more civilians in one day than they have killed in all the years', then answering and then receiving an answer and so on) - it is better to say "I had It would be much easier to convince you if I felt that you also understand the residents of Sderot and not just the Palestinian citizens" or 'I have been anxious for several years about what is happening in the south, and I would feel easier to look at the harm to their citizens if I were convinced that you care about our citizens."

What does it accomplish? This allows the other party to agree with you without giving up their positions. He does not agree with you that the Palestinians are dangerous or that they are guilty - he agrees with you that you feel bad.

And on days like this that is also something.

Here are some sentence suggestions

left:

• Instead of "we kill innocent citizens" - it is better "my heart hurts for innocent citizens who are killed"
• Instead: "The IDF commits war crimes" - better "Sometimes I feel that the IDF doesn't really care about international law"

right:

• Instead: "They get what they deserve" - better "I feel that hurting someone who hurts us is doing justice"
• Instead: "You have to enter their mother's mother" - better "I will feel calmer if I am in Hamas."Know what happens to those who try to harm us"