Im not sure there is a science of arguing but there should be one if there isn't. Because it involves deconstructing the argument and reasoning, presenting your defence or offense.

Arguing sucks mostly because it's often a battle where one dies and the other survives - dies in as much as an defended reasoning cant be successfully defended. It also mostly sucks because arguments usually become emotionally charged as loosing weakens your position.

It's a tool essentially. One that can hurt and cripple creativity, confidence and will. Obviously there is the opposite which is to differentiate which path to follow, following the argument.

Arguing seems like an exploration into the reasonings presented by both parties. In my experience arguing is used more as form if social bullying - where arguing is a way to continually batter a defence. Many people use it to confused and put off opposing reasoning.

But I sense that it can be learnt, as essentially it's a process of determining whether a reasoning correctly meets a criteria. It's then an iterative process of deciding whether the defence meets the criteria or doesn't. Often the reaction, if defence positions a weak counter is to explain and invalidate their reasoning until they give up or your argument suitably check-mates the defence, providing no alternative means to further qualify there defence.

There must be strategies to not loose sight of the goal(and indeed to have one).

The more I think about it the more angry I get at people who argue but the more I think it's a talent.