What Design Teams Can Learn from the Art of a Good Argument
I didn’t expect a book about competitive argument to inspire how I think about innovation in big tech. But Bo Seo’s Good Arguments is more than just a memoir of debate club triumphs—it’s a practical guide to having better conversations in high-stakes environments. Seo highlights the importance and impact of mastering “the art of the argument,” and if you’ve ever tried to design something new within a large tech company, you know the stakes can sometimes feel impossibly high.
Seo’s key insight is simple but powerful: good arguments aren’t about winning—they’re about fostering mutual understanding. They’re about listening with precision, disagreeing with clarity, and collaborating to build something better together. This mindset isn’t just valuable in debate—it’s essential for creative collaboration, especially in fast-moving, complex fields like design and product development.
Argument, not conflict
Seo draws a clear line between “argument” and “conflict.” Conflict is unproductive. It’s about defending your position and shutting down the other side. Argument, on the other hand, is about coming to a deeper understanding of the issue and working collaboratively toward the best solution. This distinction is crucial in design.
In many design teams, especially in large tech companies, the temptation is to avoid conflict altogether. We don’t want to upset anyone or cause tension. But the truth is, productive disagreements—when structured well—are how we move from good to great designs. It’s about how we listen to each other, present our insights, and ultimately come to a shared understanding of the best solution.
Listening is just as important as talking
Arguing, in this sense, is as much about listening as it is about talking. In fact, listening is where many design teams can truly unlock innovation. In big tech, where teams are often diverse and ideas come from many different angles, active listening ensures that all voices are heard and valued. It’s not just about hearing what’s being said, but about genuinely engaging with others’ perspectives, understanding the reasoning behind their ideas, and finding common ground. In other words, listening is about making people feel heard and that they matter—which Mónica Guzmán, journalist, speaker and author of I Never Thought of it That Way talked about in a recent interview that I wrote about here.
When we listen carefully, we open the door to new insights and unexpected connections. Often, the solution lies in the nuance—an idea that wasn’t fully fleshed out or a critique that seems minor but actually uncovers a bigger opportunity. It’s about listening for the underlying needs, assumptions, and values that drive each argument. When teams truly listen, they can identify areas for improvement, refine their ideas, and come up with better, more robust solutions.
This collaborative listening, combined with clear articulation of our own perspectives, is how we move from good designs to great ones. It ensures that our arguments don’t just push our own ideas, but also help us build stronger, more inclusive solutions by taking into account a full spectrum of ideas and feedback.
A simple way to structure your argument
Seo’s Good Arguments lays out a framework called RISA, which helps us structure an argument in a way that drives real understanding. It stands for:
Real: Is this disagreement about something that actually matters? Is it based on facts or real needs?
Important: Is the disagreement significant? Does it relate to core goals or values, like user satisfaction or long-term vision?
Specific: Is the issue clearly defined? Can we articulate the exact problem or concern we’re addressing?
Aligned: Are we aligned on the bigger goal—like improving user experience or solving a pain point?
When applied to design in big tech, this framework isn’t just about facts—it’s about deeply understanding user needs and aligning on how our solutions best solve those needs.
Applying the framework to design
In design, the “Real” part of the RISA framework corresponds to understanding the user and their needs. When designing a product or feature, you have to ask: What is the real problem that users are facing? It’s about grounding your argument in real user data, research, and feedback—not assumptions or vague ideas.
The “Important” aspect then connects to why solving this problem matters. Why is this problem worth solving? Is it affecting user satisfaction, usability, or business goals? A good design argument will always link the solution to those core values.
“Specific” is about clarity. Can we define exactly what we are solving and why our approach is the best solution? Whether it’s a UI challenge, an interaction flaw, or an accessibility issue, the design discussion needs to be specific enough to address all relevant concerns.
Finally, “Aligned” refers to the shared goal. Everyone—designers, developers, stakeholders—must be aligned on the end result. How does this solution move us closer to the larger vision of the product or service?
Understanding your role in the argument
Seo’s framework also teaches us that any argument is more effective if everyone knows their role. In design, the same holds true. Understanding your role in a design discussion will help you contribute effectively.
The Debater (the person making the argument): This is typically the designer who brings forward new ideas, solutions, or evidence. You are making the case for why a particular approach will work, backed by user data, research, and design principles. Your job is to articulate the problem and explain how your solution best solves it.
The Facilitator (guiding the conversation): In large tech teams, a facilitator—often a product manager or senior designer—ensures that the discussion remains productive and focused. You help ensure that all voices are heard, align on the purpose of the conversation, and keep the team focused on the bigger picture. Your job is to make sure everyone stays on track and the discussion doesn’t devolve into unrelated topics.
The Audience (evaluating and deciding): The audience role is the most crucial, especially in decision-making. This could be stakeholders, other teams, or senior leadership. As the audience, you’re judging the merits of the argument: Is the proposed solution grounded in real facts? Is it important to the goals? Is it specific enough to solve the problem? Are you aligned with the overall direction? Your role is to critically evaluate the arguments made by others and decide which approach makes the most sense based on the facts presented.
Example: designing guardrails for AI
Imagine you’re designing a generative AI feature in a product, and there’s a disagreement in your design team about how much control users should have over the AI-generated content. Should the tool give users full freedom, or should it include templates and filters to guide the process?
Here’s how the RISA framework applies:
Real: The problem is real and grounded in user experience. Will users understand the AI’s suggestions? Will they feel comfortable using it?
Important: This issue is critical to ensuring trust and usability in AI tools. How much control users have affects both their experience and their trust in the product.
Specific: The discussion is about the design of the AI’s interface and the specific level of customization it allows. It’s clear what’s being debated.
Aligned: The entire team is aligned in wanting to create a responsible, useful, and trustworthy experience for users. The debate is about the best way to get there.
As the designer making the argument, you present research, data, and design principles supporting your approach. If you’re the facilitator, you guide the conversation, ensuring the team stays focused on solving the user problem. If you’re the audience, you evaluate the arguments and decide which solution best serves the user’s needs.
Turning argument into innovation
In big tech, the best designs emerge when teams can turn disagreement into understanding. Rather than avoiding conflict, we should lean into it—using structured arguments to clarify our thinking, align with user needs, and create innovative solutions.
When we apply this mindset, we move beyond opinion-swapping and toward real insight. And in design, that means articulating not just what a user is doing, but what they’re trying to do—and why that matters.
That’s where innovation begins: not in perfect harmony, but in structured disagreement. In the tension between ideas, when we listen deeply, argue thoughtfully, and build something better together.