In some arguments, you may not want to enter swinging. When might this happen? Think about your readers and their tactics. Do they detest conflict, preferring to discuss an issue from many angles, usually with input from many voices before trying to reach a consensus? If so, your best tactic may be to enter the discussion and guide it into your camp; you may convince your opponents by meeting them on their playing field rather than forcing them to enter a full-fledged battle. In certain situations, as in negotiating many cultural disputes (e.g., busing minority students to schools outside their neighborhoods), you will need to understand the law as well as the deep-seated emotions and cultural norms of all sides. Arguments that are not clearly defined can be tricky; just like a good chess match, a good argument takes "reading" the opposition. You can't watch to see facial expressions, but you can anticipate how the "other side" may react. Plan and strategize carefully.

Thus, pushing your claims with "no mercy" for your opposition may not always be the best strategy to gain the readers' assent for your proposition. Instead, you may find it useful to make a concession to a logical proposal or a piece of evidence presented in the counterargument. You acknowledge the validity of that portion of the counterargument without giving away your strong points. How do you do this successfully?

First, you need to know as much as possible about the counterargument: what is the counterposition, what evidence supports it, why did the opponents arrive at that position, and who are they, i.e., what measure of expertise do they have about the issue (e.g., do they have insider information to which you have no access)? Most arguments are not "cut and dried"-there is often good evidence-and even good reasoning-on each side.

Suppose both the evidence and the argument are good, and there's no way you can dispute them. In this case, your best strategy is to openly acknowledge the evidence as correct and even agree with it. Then, however, you will want to let your opponents know that even though they may be correct in one area, that single piece of evidence does not carry the whole argument.

Strategic concessions can help dignify a "shouting match" argument; if you make a concession to an angry opponent, that person will realize that you have listened to his or her proposition and that you at least partially understand his or her perspective. In return, your opposition may do the same for your position: concede a point here and there, rather than completely deny all validity in your argument.

Strategic concessions make you look reasonable. Moreover, they're efficient; by conceding points you know you can't win, you move the whole argument along faster-toward the points you know you can win.