If you are not interested in the history and reasoning behind this method you can skip to the actual instructions here
All of modern society seems to use a method of persuasion which is proven to be totally ineffective and usually counter-productive. This involves first telling the other person they are wrong, then telling them what you think is right. Then if they do not accept your version, you present them with evidence supporting your case. You keep presenting evidence, and the other does the same, both gradually raising your voices. This can end in several different ways, but it pretty much never ends with one side of the discussion being persuaded that the other is right. When you present people with facts it paradoxically makes their belief in whatever you are arguing against stronger. The same with telling people they are wrong. The reasons for this are complicated and not entirely clear. But modern psychology has established in multiple studies that this is exactly how human minds work and that this method of persuasion is a giant mistake. The first strategy I can recommend to people who want others to share their point of view is just never to try to persuade anyone. This will get you a lot further than the usual strategy.
The method everyone uses comes from a historical method of dialog called dialectic. The original purpose of dialectic was not to persuade anyone, but to discover the truth. When two people both come together with the goal in mind of finding out the truth of something, and they are both open to either position coming out on top, this can work. When two such people present arguments to each other, listen carefully to each other, and both genuinely aren't sure which position is right, this can be a very useful strategy. If either party is not open to their side being wrong, it will fail dismally. The same kind of strategy is also used in rhetoric. This is when two parties discuss something in front of an audience. In this case it does not matter what the beliefs of the speakers are or whether they are convinced at the end. The goal is to convince the audience. This can work, but presenting facts is often less effective in rhetoric than people think as well. Often the audience will identify with one speaker or the other and simply respond to the evidence as they would if it were directed at them. This means the audience becomes polarised and people end up being further apart on both sides. It is understandable that people have taken these two modes of communication, and misinterpreted them as being for the purpose of persuasion. It does after all sound like that is what is happening when you hear people using them.
The end result of these methods being used throughout society, especially on the internet, is polarisation. Whatever belief a person first attaches themself to, every discussion they have pushes them further and further into the extreme of that belief. This can be seen everywhere in our society. Topics come up that some people feel are important, so they start trying to persuade everyone. This makes more people feel strongly about both sides of the issue, so they start trying to persuade people too. Whether the topic is vaccination, abortion, religion, taxation or basically anything - it results in a huge war of words where everyone is really angry with each other and no one is really moderate.
Recent psychological studies have gained major insight into how people form opinions and beliefs, and what happens when they discuss them with others. Many people are familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes the way in which people who don't know a lot about a complex topic often wildly overestimate their understanding. Another interesting study found that people are likely to evaluate their own understanding much more accurately after having explained everything they know or think they know in detail. This means that if someone is not that knowledgeable about something they believe, or there are flaws in their understanding, that describing that belief in detail can weaken their confidence in it. Once their confidence is weakened they will often attempt to bolster it by learning more about the topic. This has the result that their beliefs become more well informed.
Someone has just said something that you think is disastrously wrong, misinformed and downright dangerous. You are upset. Here is what you need to do.
First, swallow your anger, it will only get in the way.
Tell the person that you don't really know much about the thing they were just talking about, but you are interested to learn more about it. They will then proceed to lay out their position more fully.
When they are done, tell them you want to know all about it in detail. Ask if they can really spell it out for you from the beginning. Do not let them get side tracked on other topics or this could take hours.
When they are finished with what they consider to be a full and complete description of the entire position they hold, they will stop again. Then you must start asking questions about it. Pretend you are very ignorant. Coming up with good questions that sound like genuine curiosity is a skill which may take a little practice. Asking for definitions of important terms is very useful. Often people will use words like 'democracy' or 'freedom' but really have to think very hard when asked what they actually mean specifically. Otherwise ask general questions that you feel might get the other person to think more deeply about parts of their belief that they previously didn't really focus on. How did people first find out about this? How did you first hear about this? What kind of people would you consider to be experts in this topic? Usually these questions are very specific to the actual topic at hand so it is hard to give good examples. The general goal is to make the person think about their beliefs in as much detail as possible and to avoid them glossing over parts they don't understand
When you run out of questions and really can't find any new ways of getting the other person to explain anything more, thank them and walk away. Do not tell them your own position or belief in this topic. Do not try to point out any flaws you have noticed in their arguments. Your job is done, you can move on to the next thing.
Apart from the obvious advantage of this method - that it can actually change people's minds, at least a little bit - there are a few other important things that make this a very powerful social tool. For one it is ethically very safe. If you are not sure which side of the debate you stand on, you should not be trying to persuade someone of anything as you might in fact be wrong. With this method that doesn't matter. If the person you are talking to is well informed and has really thought everything through in detail, you will not succeed in shaking their confidence with this method. They might even convince you. This method only works if the person you are talking to really is disastrously wrong and misinformed. This means you don't even have to worry what the truth is or whether you have all the facts. Another advantage of this method is that instead of destroying friendships and making people angry, like the classical method does, this method will bring people together. The person you are talking to will appreciate your respect and curiosity and they will like you more. You on the other hand might gain some insight into how they think and feel and even if they are wrong, you might understand better why they believe what they do.
This method can be time consuming but I urge you, for the sake of truth and understanding in the world: even if you don't have the patience to talk to people in this way, please stop using the classical argumentative method. That kind of debate is destroying the ability of our whole species to have sensible conversations and to solve important problems.