I can tell you that in forensics (speech and debate), a person is considered to have conceded a point if he or she does not address it at his or her next available opportunity.

However, given your example, it would be trivial to rephrase things so that She is not introducing a new point, but providing supporting evidence for point 1. I'll restate your case, with some things explicitly spelled out that would normally remain only assumed.

She: The violin is no harder to learn than the guitar.

He: I disagree. One point of evidence against your statement is that the violin is fretless and requires more sight-reading skill, so it is harder.

She: I dispute that you have the expertise to make that statement, since you don't even know anybody who's learned the violin, and haven't learned it yourself.

Now this is a losing argument for Her, because the exact same statement could be used by He to say something like "I don't know anybody who has learned to play the violin, though I know several people who have learned to play the guitar, suggesting that the guitar is easier to learn to play."

But I suspect that She's reference to you (er, I mean He) not knowing anybody actually goes back to earlier in the conversation, perhaps to the very root of the conversation. By starting in the middle, so to speak, and labeling it as point 1, you've left us all in the dark and painted the conversation to your advantage.

But it doesn't matter, because you can't win. She is a woman, you (I mean He) is a man, and women always win arguments, simply because there are no judges and no consisten rules.

Thank you! That's very interesting. I was hoping I'd hear from someone who knows more about this stuff. As it happens, I made up that first conversation, so there was no "earlier" and no intention to leave the reader in the dark. I just wanted to come up with a simple example of changing the attack without addressing the point. I can see it's awkward because one wouldn't just state Point 1 out of the blue.

I don't think women always win arguments, at least from my experience, because I've rarely won an argument with either gender. I want there to be consistent rules.

Nice blog, by the way.

I actually hadn't paid enough attention earlier to realize that you are probably a She after all. Sorry about that. I say that women always win arguments simply because if they are a couple and it ends in a stalement, the man is likely to, um, have a desire to give in before the woman does. At least if they're youngish.

Okay, never mind. I should have known better than to make a broad generalization. I was trying to be funny and failed miserably. I take it back, you're correct.

See how it's supposed to work?

I should also point out that not all debate events use the same rules, but generally in the structured debates, one of the keys to success is to accurately summarize your opponents points during each of their turns so that you can address them quickly, at least enough to ensure you don't lose the point, before stating your own case.

Honestly, I've tried to introduce formal debate rules into my own marriage, but my wife hasn't been too keen on the idea. :)

I also only just now read the rest of your post (I tend not to follow [continued at blog] links, and they aren't encouraged by Eric, I don't think), and the example you use of criticism of Bush is a pretty good one. I've run into just that sort of thing at this very site, quite often. I won't name names or anything, but he knows who he is. :)

:-) Thanks for looking at my 'continued' link. I'm going to ask Eric if he'd rather I just post something long rather than using 'continued.'

"...generally in the structured debates, one of the keys to success is to accurately summarize your opponents points during each of their turns so that you can address them quickly, at least enough to ensure you don't lose the point, before stating your own case." Interesting that this is (as you say) vitally important in structured debate AND in emotionally charged personal conflicts such as in a marriage. Therefore such a valuable tool for everyone to learn. I've long seen the value of rules in personal conflicts (marriage or friendship) but have found it harder to use them in political or factual arguments. I've been easily intimidated. It's hard to continue under high emotions or if someone doesn't use honorable arguing rules.

It's common to see well-respected writers and pundits using bad and slippery debate tactics, unfortunately, setting a bad example.

Eric tries to be nice, but I can already tell you what the "preferred" approach is: Post the whole thing here, but put something at the end or beginning or both that says something like "(This essay may also be found on Northwest Notes.)" or "(First published at Northwest Notes.)" or some variation on that.

The beauty of the net is plausible deniability. Comments are the best - anybody could type in my name and URL! If I say something really stupid, I can just say it wasn't me! Heck, I'm an admin on the site, I can just delete the comment altogether! Woohoo! Okay, I'm kidding.

Still, don't be intimidated, at least not on the net. In real life refusing to be intimidated can lead to outbreaks of violence, so it's often better to take the road less traveled. But in print, you can always take a deep breath, a quick gulp of something, and outline your response before hitting Post, so there's no point in backing down.

I'm not sure why exactly I'm heading in this direction, but one of the more interesting cross-gender communication techniques I've heard is to repeat everything back until you can agree on what was said. Like a drive-through window.

For example: "Why do you always do this? You always interrupt me and never let me say anything. I'm tired of this. You suck!" Respond with something like "Here is what I hear you saying. You think that I don't listen to you. Is that right?"

Assuming both parties know how it is supposed to work, even the heavily stilted language of the response can help break the cycle and get a moderate response. Something like "Well, more like that you don't even value what I say enough to let me say it in the first place." The repeating goes back and forth until the person agrees that this is what they meant to say, and then moves forward. Pretty cool.

Also, the question-asking exercise you describe is an excellent one. I wrote a novel last year and gave it to a relative or two to read. They were polite enough to ask questions without direct criticism, and that was extremely helpful to me. I hadn't even realized how they did that until you described the process. Obviously I haven't been through the same course you have. :)