Years ago I came to the conclusion that often discussions escalate into a focus on peoples personalities, leaving the issue real issue behind.  As a result, it becomes a form of argument.

In this case, the argument is not an exchange of diverging or opposite views about the issues but rather becomes a reason or set of reasons,  focused on the other parties shortcomings.  These are disguised as being about the issue.

Attack

In reality these points are formulated with the aim of explaining why the other person is wrong.   This justification become the topic of discussion and the root cause becomes irrelavent.

I have have learned to recognize the use of a pro-noun typically means the discussion is getting off course.Unfortunately without diagnosing the problem, but focusing on the other people the argument quickly becomes personal and though it probably was not intended it degenerates to attack/ defend, in essence a battle.

Ironically if you pause and focus on the aspects of the discussion outside of the interpersonal, I find the perspectives on the actual problem are usually in sync.

That is, although the conversation may become heated the differences are almost exclusively related to the personal attacks (i.e., your behavioural justifications).

In fact, after careful and reasoned thought, you will probably realize both parties are identifing a identical issue, root cause and solution.  It just sounds like that is not the case.

I have have learned to recognize the use of a pro-noun typically means the discussion is getting off course.  When this happens I stop talking, think about what the issues actually is and refocus the discussion.