why do traditional arguments fail?

Answer 1

"Tradition" may provide structure and security, but it is rigid, it has no flexibility to change with the times.

Although, the opposite could be said for "progressiveness"... progress is a way to move forward and improve life more, but it is also fluid, that is, it has no boundaries at all.

But arguing... is a negative-negative scenario, no one wins no matter what is said. How about trying discourse instead? That way, the discussion can allow for disagreement and all parties can still like each other in the end. ;)

Answer 2

I believe it's because we don't take the time to try and understand the other's position. In a traditional argument, each has formed an opinion or taken a position that leads to the need to defend that position. Rather than starting with an opinion, one could, if they learned to respond rather than react, begin by asking questions and truly listening without an opinion. As the other party answers each question, the listener can ask additional questions based upon what they're hearing. Responding in this way allows one to gain a real understanding of the other's arguments, and by actively listening, rather than simply hearing the other person, will often lead to a willingness to listen to your arguments.
It seems to be human nature to want to be right...pride, a need for attention, insecurities, etc., all contribute to the problem.

Answer 3

CONFLICT WITH CONFLICT CREATES MORE CONFLICT
AND YOU BEGIN WITH THE CONFLICT AND NEVER ENDS UNTIL SOME AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES
ARE WILLING TO END THE ARGUMENT ..
SOME PEOPLE LIKE FIGHTING ON PURPOSE ..
ALL IT WOULD END UP IN MORE CONFLICT