We tend to think of arguments as "fights" between two (or more) parties. In this frame, there is generally a "winner" and "loser."
When we consider ego and personal bias, we do not want to lose.
But if we are being honest with ourselves and the other parties, then we should not really care about the outcome of the argument as it pertains to our own bias. We should only care about how logical the solution that you come to is. We *should* just want the right answer to be the outcome.
A good question to ask yourself (or the person you are in a debate with) is this:
My test: ask "what new data or info would make you change your mind?" Poor answer shows opinion is non-rational or emotionally entrenched https://t.co/ERCKUSqQcu— Will Robbins (@whrobbins) September 8, 2017
If people are acting irrationally (meaning their conviction is only grounded in bias/ego and not logic/facts), then perhaps the argument is not worth having.
But if we build our foundation in logic (not emotion) then arguments become much cleaner and easier to digest.
In that context, there is no winner/loser - there is just the factual/right answer that becomes visible.
Let's keep emotions out of it.