There are few things more frustrating than this: You have an important matter to address and you have all the facts. You know however, there will be resistance to the subject you will raise. As soon as you bring it up, discussions are initiated. But instead of a focused dialog, subjects are changed frequently, so that you are not sure what people are talking about anymore. After the meeting concluded, there are no results and no changes.

In short: there is no resolution. This leaves you deeply unsatisfied. But more worrisome: you have no idea how it happened. At this point, you can generally assume two things:

If this is a repeating issue, you can infer, that this is deliberate. Spinning discussions out of control is a very common tactic - a sabotage, if we call it by its name. This exploit is (mostly) a natural response, designed to counter data based evidence, or by extension, criticism in general. As a byproduct, this kind of linguistic (and hostile) takeover has a great potential to damage the career of the victim. On a grander scheme, this also results in the diminishing of the importance of facts, to the detriment not only to the organization, but also to us and the way we deal with verifiable truth.

In this instance, the conversation was lost for everybody. Henceforth the mission is clear: Win back the conversation and make facts matter.

But before we can tackle countermeasures, we have to understand the nature of this specific situation.

As mentioned, introducing chaos into the discussion is a deliberate attempt to derail the conversation, so that factual and verifiable truth can be buried under an excess of talking points. Because of its unfair nature and high success rate, deflection is a very common and save strategy - which is excellent, because we will make use of that laziness.

Naturally, repeating patterns are easier to break. Also, here is a lot to gain in identifying behavior patterns (aka Modus Operandi/MO), in order to learn how debates are being manipulated.

An overall method of stifling the conversation is the excessive monologue or the non-stop output of arguments, without waiting for responses. The goal is to avoid interaction. As a moderately save exploit, its goal is to pile on plenty of arguments, without having to face scrutiny for any. Furthermore, the users of this tactic can hide the quality of their arguments behind their quantity, creating an illusion of a superior intellectual position.

It is a particular dishonest method, because it makes it very difficult, if even impossible, to address every single point raised during that excess. And if points are picked up, the offender might just restart the machine-gunning of talking points again, creating a cycle of unfocused deliberations without goal or end.

What makes it more egregious is the flagrant hypocrisy, the offenders often have no qualms showcasing:

1. Offenders often get away with the tirade, by insisting of not being interrupted, while not hesitating interrupting others.
2. Offenders often accuse others of talking too much, whilst doing so themselves.

As seen, they hold others to standards whilst not complying to them themselves.

The users of this tactic may also be trying to buy time, to think about a response of a first issue. By the time they have exhausted their deflections, they may have come up with an appropriate response to the initial argument. This allows them to come back and to close the monologue-loop (by becoming a plaidoyer), creating a very comfortable and compelling narrative. This puts them in an unearned, but still strong position.

Fortunately, there are very effective ways to counteract excessive monologues.
(To be followed up at Part 3: How)

Beside overall tactics, there are also very distinct and repeating methods, that come into play. And for this specific corporate scenario, there are five fallacies among many, which you will most likely encounter:

Fox hunting was a popular recreational activity among the nobles in the past. They had however the issue, that their hounds would attack the prey, before the hunter could claim the fox. So in order to prevent the dogs from doing so, the hunters distracted their hounds with the stinging smell of the dried fish, so they in turn would loose focus on their target.

Just like the namesake, this logical fallacy is designed to distract and draw attention to an off topic sentiment.

Common are also distractions in the nature of whataboutisms. They are very blunt and obvious attempts to dodge arguments and have even less tangibility as the classical Red Herring Fallacy. Discussions in non professional settings are guaranteed to spiral out of control, which often end in a blaming-contests. In the office however, this can lead to successful subject changes, since in a meeting, people aren't nearly as confrontational as anywhere else.

The classical blame dodge. It's a natural reaction to focus blame on someone else and is often used with another kind of deflection. Whilst there may be some merit to the dodge, if the blame shift is rather quick, one has to be careful about the truthfulness or validity of said deflection.

Meaning in Latin "against the man", this method is used to criticize the opponents character or motivation, instead of logically reacting to arguments. These personal attacks can also target other aspects such as background, physical features or mental characteristics. And they are all irrelevant to the subject matter.

Whilst outbursts such as these are mostly results of being cornered (good), they can also be used deliberately, in order to emotionally derail the opponent (very bad). The likelihood of the target making bad choices based on strong emotions is very high.

In the corporate world ad hominems are generally more subtle and not obviously abrasive. The goal of the opposition is to divert focus. A direct character assassination would draw too much attention."

There was no need in addressing the emotional state, unless the person has indeed shown strong feelings. If that was not the case, we can infer, that the irrelevant emotional state was purposefully targeted or augmented, in order to question the validity of their position. It is an uncontested claim and unless the claim has not been disputed, the stain of that assertion will stick.

In the second sentence, the claim of non understanding was being casually thrown in, instead of responding to the argument. Whilst not saying so, there is a high possibility, that the offender tired to augment the impression of the other person's stupidity. If not addressed or clarified, this could have further consequences for the rest of the discussion.

Together with "just stay calm" those two appeals are very common and oftentimes genuine. However, they frequently end in irritation. Because in the history of "stay calm", rarely anyone stays calm.
That is why context is always important. More to that in Part 3: How.

Just like the man out of straw is a placeholder for a real person, this fallacy makes use of a position, that is a placeholder for the real issue. Sometimes a person might find themselves feeling difficult to argue against a position - so why not create a new one, that is easier to defend or attack?

If you pay attention, you will see that the response of the second statement does not reflect the position of the first one. The first said, that they should limit breaks for whatever reason. At no point did the person intent to get rid of all the breaks.
The opposition oversimplified and misrepresented the first position purposefully and created an all together new and extreme version to the original statement. This makes attacking the placeholder much easier and leaves the attacked wide open for criticism.
The Strawman fallacy works well in tandem with the ad hominem attacks and are offensive techniques to sabotage  arguments.

Also known as the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy, which means in Latin "you too". It is a diversionary tactic, to deflect criticism to the target, trying to diminish one's own responsibilities. It is important to mention, that this does not solve any issues; its purpose is to mitigate own guilt by pointing out the first offender, which initiated consecutive misbehaving.

Even if they both have done the same misdeed, it's often forgotten, that they both have done the deed equally bad. The excuse would be: "I cannot be punished, since you did it first, you hypocrite."

Done right, the accused can admit, that they are part of a bigger problem. But it becomes a fallacy, when guilt was not acknowledged. Instead, the counter-criticism was used to hide ones own responsibility.

What is also common is the use of the false equivalency, or the false equivocation of two different facts.

Oversimplification is the key to convey this - surprisingly - popular sentiment, which can also be found in the private sector.

This tactic tries to sidestep arguments, by demanding trust in expertise or a source managed by an authority. This becomes a fallacy, when it is being misused:

1. Purpose is to circumventing interaction with criticism or arguments
2. Purpose is to appeal to trust in non tangible opinion
3. Authority or citation is false or irrelevant

The goal is to support an argument with unearned legitimacy. It is especially egregious, when cited expertise is in an irrelevant field. The users often find themselves not wanting to admit lesser understanding on other subjects and hide insecurities of the quality of their own knowledge, experiences and expertise, whilst demanding for acknowledgement for their unproven acumen. This is common in the corporate world, since people have to maintain a public persona, which is in many ways better than our real self.

The claim of challenge has to be carefully analyzed, since it is an accusation after all. As such, it could be a Strawman Fallacy, the misrepresentation of a position, paired with an Argument from Authority in the second part of the sentence.

Since a challenge in itself is neither good nor bad, in context with the Argument from Authority, it represents a misbehave, the daring to question the "boss", so to say. A valid concern, if it would not be a fallacy, because it's not been countered by a logical argument or explanation. One can assume, that there was in all likelihood no challenge, but a question or an argument, that is not being addressed. In context, it was a blame to distract and attack, paired with a command, disguised as a quasi explanation of not needing to understand the issue.

Not understanding certain issues is indeed warranted for some cases, but for the vast majority of other, when one party specifically asks for comprehension, since when is trying to understand a process a bad thing?

A faulty misuse of quasi authority is always a bad business practice and in this case, plain and simple, an attempt to bully in order to silence voices, to hide own inadequate quality of argument, work or the ability to explain coherently and precisely. 

Not to forget, an Argument from Authority Fallacy is very likely used, when trying to push a certain narrative or agenda, that is poorly defensible.

Since we have identified the issues and the techniques, we can now start the process of learning about the nature of this conflict. Only with an understanding of all factors, we can formulate a strategy, that can hold up. It is a better business practice, which encourages meaningful discussions and introduces change, to mitigate repeating strive.

1. What is the conflict?
2. Why are we in conflict
3. How to counter?
4. How to prevent future incursions to our credibility?
and
5. How we can improve upon our own failings.

The quality of our own facts have to be revisited. And if you have found yourself using one or a few of the above mentioned tactics and exploits: good. Now it's a time to change. Fallacies may be easy, but they can be cracked very hard - which you may find out in the next parts. That is why it is of utmost importance, that we have to start looking at ourselves and question our own motive.

The goal - again - is to win back the conversation and to sabotage the - apologies for lack of a better word - sabotage. For that, you are welcome to read Part 2: Why.

As mentioned, using exploits is easy, but they leave you wide open. And defending the indefensible is, in the long run, tiring and very risky. Stick with hard facts from the beginning, verify your data and work with those. Being close to verifiable truth may be hard, but it is way safer than going the short cut.

And we are not in a hurry.