I stumbled upon this piece and got interested as I have observed how discussions in Narialand are often derailed and the purpose defeated.
A lot of times, what would ordinarily be a good discuss becomes attack on persons, ethnic groups, and so on.
When I got through the article, I discovered I am guilty as well.
I'm making a thread of it with the aim of making Nairaland discussions more educative, entertaining, informative and even when we disagree on positions, it doesn't have to end up in hatred and "verbal aggressiveness".

Have a great week ahead Nairalanders.

Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Two Argument-related "Traits"

Based on the work of Professor Dominic Infante of Kent State University
These notes are adapted from course materials prepared by Professor Robert Gass, California State University, Fullerton
Argumentativeness
• Defined: “A predisposition to recognize controversial issues, advocate positions, and refute opposing positions” (Infante)
• Infante considers this a personality trait
• Argumentativeness isd proposed as a subset of “assertiveness”
• It Is generally considered to be a positive, constructive trait
Argumentativeness and Assertiveness
• Assertiveness and argumentativeness are viewed as constructive predispositions
• Assertiveness includes being forceful, firm, using reasoning to defend personal positions while refuting the positions of adversaries
• Research has shown that “high argumentatives” are seen as more credible, eloquent, creative, and self-assured
More on Argumentativeness
• High argumentatives are willing to engage in argument, like to discuss controversial issues, initiate arguments, express disagreement
• Low argumentatives dislike arguing, shy away from conflict, withdraw from arguments, and are reluctant to voice disagreement
Finding a Balance
• The idea is to strike a balance between precipitating arguments needlessly and avoiding arguments altogether.
• One’s style of arguing should lie between the two extremes.
Verbal Aggressiveness (VA)
• Defined: a predisposition to attack the self-concept of others
• VA Is associated with name-calling, the use of threats, and ultimatums, negativity, resentment, and suspicion
• VA is generally considered a negative, destructive form of communication
• VA Is similar to Brockriede’s notion of the arguer as “rapist” or Walker's arguer as "abuser"
Four Main Causes of Verbal Aggressiveness
• Psychopathology (attacking for other unresolved issues)
• Disdain (expressing hate thought verbal attacks)
• Social learning (modeling behavior)
• Argumentative skill deficiency
Verbal Aggressiveness--continued
• Verbal aggressiveness is an assault on another’s self concept, rather than his/her position.
• Individuals who rely on verbal aggressiveness are viewed as less credible, have less satisfying relationships, and resort to physical aggression more often.
• Consequences of verbal aggression include: lower self-concept, frustration, anxiety, anger, and resentment, embarrassment, physical aggression.
• Verbal aggressiveness is viewed as a skill deficiency whereby an individual lacks the verbal skills required to deal with normal disagreements and everyday frustrations.
Forms of Verbal Aggressiveness
• Name calling, insults, put-downs
• Character attacks, ridicule
• Racial epithets
• Threats, ultimatums
• Nonverbal aggression—rolling the eyes, gritting the teeth, looks of disdain
Some Caveats or Qualifiers
• The two traits are not inversely related.
• An individual can be high in argumentativeness and high in verbal aggressiveness
• Culture bias in argumentativeness
• Sex differences in the two traits:
-- In general, males are more prone to argumentativeness than females
-- In general, males are more prone to verbal aggressiveness than females

Managing Verbal Aggressiveness
• Avoid verbal aggressives: don’t engage people who are known to be verbally aggressive—don’t be an “enabler”
• Example: I’m not going to argue with you unless we both have a chance to speak our minds and unless you refrain from insults.”
• Be polite: allow the other to speak without interruption, use a calm voice, practice empathy, allow opponent’s to save face
• Example: “I can understand why you are so upset. I would be to under the circumstances.”
• Define the argument: Make sure everyone agrees on what the issue or point of contention is
• Example: “We were arguing about where to spend Thanksgiving, not whether I’m selfish or inconsiderate.”
• Example: “Let’s deal with that issue in a minute. I want to get back to what we were just talking about.”
• Recognize shifts from constructive to destructive
• Example: “I realize you are upset, but that was uncalled for.”
• Example: “please don’t shout at me. I can hear you just fine.”
• Do argue, Don’t attack: focus on the issues not on personalities
• Example: “I’m not saying you are selfish or cheap, I’m saying you didn’t pay your share for the dinner, whatever the reason.”
• Be aware: Be attentive to the kinds of situations that can trigger aggressiveness:
• Win-lose scenarios, personal rejection, “sandbagging” (storing up grievances)
• Know when to stop arguing: leave-taking is also a communication skill:
• Example: “If you continue to call me names, I’m going home.”
Application to Intimate Relationships
• "Skill Deficiency Model”: lack of argumentation skills is a catalyst for aggression, violence.
• Watkins (1982): lack of effective conflict management skills is a major issue in domestic violence
• Infante, Sabourin, Rudd, & Shannon (1990): A catalytic reaction to violence is most likely to happen in marriages where both spouses have latent hostile dispositions and argumentative skill deficiencies.
• Walker (1984): Battered women attempted to prevent abuse by trying to pacify their spouses, or accommodate them in any way possible
More about Abusive Relationships
• Infante, Chandler, & Rudd (1989). Spouses involved in violent relationships tend to exhibit lower argumentativeness and greater verbal aggressiveness.
• Rudd, Burant, & Beatty (1994): Battered women rely on different compliance-gaining strategies than women in nonviolent marriages.
• Battered women rely more on indirect strategies; ingratiation, promise, explanation, deceit, etc. Their choice of strategies reflects their limited power and control in the relationship.
• Rudd & Burant (1995): Battered women used more indirect strategies, followed by more power-based strategies (threat, direct request, aversive stimulus). Non-violent couples tend to use a greater variety of strategies than abusive relationships (more middle-ground strategies). Non-violent couples tend to de-escalate conflicts by ignoring some types of negative communication by their partners.

SOURCE