One thing I've learned in the past year or so it's not to quarrel with people about solutions but to shift the debate to the problems the proposed solutions are trying to address. People are most of the times interested in solving problems not in the particular solution, while at the same time they seem to be most able to express the problem in terms of a potential a solution. Unfortunately, by presenting the problem in terms of a particular solution the scope of potential solutions becomes substantially more narrow and limited. Furthermore, the conflicts emerge whenever the proposed solution contradicts objectives of other people involved. Solutions are often wrong and problems are often imaginary. By shifting debate from the solution to the problem itself, we can most of the times avoid clash of opinions on the merits of the proposed solution and start instead debating alternative solutions or address root causes of problems not some particular expression of the problems. It seems that I have been so successfully climbing down the ladder of inference lately that asking "what problem are we solving" has become my trademark statement at Zemanta. I recommend you trying this approach, too. You might avoid quite some conflict and fruitless discussion using it.