Winning at Arguments, I am already very, very good at when I want to be, which is rare these days. It took me many years too realize that even though I "won" almost every argument I cared about, winning the argument wasn't usually all that useful. Winning an argument is the wrong goal to have for almost any purpose, and rarely leads to the outcomes I desire.

If I recall correctly, the main point of this class was to redefine the meaning of "winning" to be something more like "achieving the optimal outcome for both parties"... i.e. you pause the argument as early as possible, consider the goals of everyone involved, and (ideally together but possibly with less cooperation) work to optimize for those goals. Your comment above sounds like it's still using the conventional definition of winning arguments, and it seems to me that you seem frustrated by that approach. Worth revisiting, perhaps?