What's the use of argument? Can you persuade the others to accept your point of view abandoning their own? Those who yield to persuasion are not worth the effort; those who don't are not worth the time.
Firm convictions are not to fight with; this is something we should esteem and accept as a solid fact, trying to comprehend its objective necessity and positive content. One can fight with people, but never with their convictions.
Quite often, it is not the other's views that provoke antagonism, but rather their vulgarization, a distorted reflection in the curved face of the philistine mirror. Sometimes, such vulgar interpretations become so commonplace that nobody even tries to consult the originals, befuddled with popular quotations and second-hand reports. Thus, F. Schlegel with his conception of the "spiritually interesting" fought against I. Kant's thesis that the judgment of taste presupposes no interest, forgetting that it was exactly Immanuel Kant who first described the so called "intellectual interest" as related to aesthetic judgment. Similarly, Kant is often said to be the founder of philosophical "apriorism", and reproached (or praised) for his "agnosticism", while the works of Kant are replete with the statements affirming the objectivity of mental forms, their correspondence to the natural laws, and a expressing the firm belief in the human ability to comprehend anything at all. Yes, Kant didn't find the origin of the schemes of reasoning, and he honestly refused to discuss this issue, indicating only that such abstractions cannot be derived from experience. The criticism of such an "apriorism" is directed against what Kant did not do, and not against what he did. Thus one would blame Sir Isaac Newton for never trying to build a mathematical theory of love!
All kinds of argument are due to the lack of mutual understanding. But, in this case, it would be much more efficient to learn from each other rather than dispute.