Questions to Ask Your Argument-Prone Colleague

We live in an argument culture. Discussions too often involve participants intent on persuading, winning over, or defeating others in an argument. Time is spent on making statements and expecting others to accept them at face value while discouraging, or shutting off, any counterargument or challenge to the speaker’s assertions. We should instead support an inquiry culture where respectful argument and advocacy are balanced with respectful and meaningful inquiry to foster full exploration, understanding, and dialogue in the process of deliberation to achieve the best outcomes.

When in discussion with an argument-prone individual, ask questions. Doing so opens the space for respect and sharing of perspectives from many, not just a few. Willingness to accept inquiry also helps us test, refine and, where warranted, change our perspectives, and enrich our understanding and relationships in dialogue with others. Consider these examples and forms of questions to help move conversation toward dialogue and deliberation:

Diagnostic Questions
Purpose: To probe motives or causes.

Example: Speaker makes a declarative statement about a cultural or political issue as though it were fact while you feel it is only opinion.

Responses:

• “What makes you say that?”
• “What information are you relying on to draw that conclusion?”
• “Can you share more about your experience that leads you to believe that?”

Exploratory Questions
Purpose: To probe basic knowledge or understanding.

Example: The speaker shares information about a situation. You are unsure whether the individual fully understands the facts and circumstances, you want to know what the individual does know or understand, or how they feel about the matter.

Responses:

• “What concerns [bothers, worries, etc.] you about that situation?”
• “How does that situation make you feel?”
• “Is there something you wanted [or are planning] to do regarding that matter?”
• “Can you say more about what you know about that situation? I’d like to know more and why it matters so much to you. Perhaps it’s something I should be concerned about too.”

Testing or Challenge Questions
Purpose: To examine assumptions, conclusions, and interpretations.

Example: You believe the speaker is making assumptions or is misinterpreting information leading to a misguided conclusion. Or, if there is a sound basis for what the speaker believes, you would like to know what it is.

Responses:

• “Help me understand how you draw that conclusion.”
• “I have to say that I see things quite differently and will be happy to share why. But I’d like to know the basis for why you believe as you do. Would you mind telling me what sources you are relying on? Perhaps I’m misinformed.”
• “What evidence [data, sources, observations, etc.] can you point to that support your statement?”

Hypothetical Questions:
Purpose: To suggest consideration of different facts, issues, or perspectives.

Example: You believe the speaker’s perspective is too simplistic, based on faulty analysis, or reflective of popular and unexamined opinion, and you want to stretch his or her (and other dialogue participants’) thinking on the matter.

Responses:

• “What if ___ were to occur? How would that change your perspective? Or would it?”
• “Could I complicate the scenario a bit? Let me share a few additional facts. [Share details]. What would you do in that situation?”
• “What might happen if we did ___ instead of your proposal? What if we had no other choice?”

Extension Questions
Purpose: To expand discussion on issues.

Example: In group conversation, the speaker is dominating, and you want to ensure multiple perspectives are shared before reaching a decision. Or you feel additional context, examples, perspectives, or facts would enrich the conversation.

Responses:

• “What do others think [or how do others feel] about this situation?”
• “What examples can we think of to illustrate this point, or to refine our thinking on the matter?”
• “Is there a different way to express [illustrate, think about, view, etc.] that?”

Priority Questions
Purpose: To identify the most important issues.

Example: Not all issues deserve equal weight or consideration, and you want to ensure the most important issues are retained for further deliberation while deemphasizing other issues (even if there is a vocal minority).

Responses:

• “We’ve covered a lot of ground today. What are the most salient [important, vital, essential] issues that we must tackle for our next meeting? What is less important?”
• “If we had to order these issues for future discussion, what would come first? Second? Third?”
• “What issues resonant most with us today? Are there one or two we can all agree on for future exploration?”

Process Questions
Purpose: To assess direction, interest, or buy-in on issues or topics.

Example: You wonder if conversations should be going in a different direction, if some are losing interest based on time spent on less important issues or sense a need to redirect more talkative or domineering participants.

Responses:

• “I wonder if we need to shift gears and discuss a different topic? What do you [or others] think?”
• “How will exploring that issue further help us address the main purpose of our meeting today?”
• “What is missing from our conversation? Any perspectives we haven’t heard? What about from anyone who hasn’t spoken for a while?”

Summary Questions
Purpose: To synthesize or identify common themes, takeaways, or lessons learned.

Example: You are approaching the end of meaningful discourse and want to assess where you’ve found common ground (or not). You also wish to identify issues for future deliberation.

Responses:

• “What are the main themes [areas of agreement, points of common understanding, etc.] that we’ve identified in our conversation today?”
• “What remains unresolved? What will require further discussion before we’re able to find common ground?”
• “What have we learned today?”
• “What should be the main topics for conversation next time we meet?”

I’ve written previously about the value of dialogue over debate, of engaging in productive argument or avoiding it altogether, and of uncovering common interests to find common ground (among other topics). Some may never be inclined to transition from argument mode. But the more we model these skills and practices, including encouraging inquiry to understand multiple perspectives, the more we may change the dynamics of our interactions. We may even persuade argument-prone skeptics of the value of listening and inquiry as the best means for having their perspectives heard and validated.