Did Jesus ever argue? Does arguing have a value to it? Are there different levels of arguing?

When something happens to us, like an argument with a stranger or with a friend. Do we assume that there is something wrong with that person who just doesn’t understand and therefore we label them stupid, foolish, arogant, he's got issues... etc

Or do we take a moment and look at ourselves and how we reacted, perhaps provoked the response. Do we ask ourselves what we should do next time.

I guess it depends of your belief system. I strongly believe that anybody can be talked over. I believe that there is a language that breaks defences of others leaving them defenceless. As cheesy as it sounds, this would be the language of love ;)

So, in my communication, I either communicate love/care/understanding which leaves people defenceless or I communicate the opposite of that which is "I don’t care" you do your thing and I do mine, we are not connected.

I believe there is a way that gets what it wants. It gets the right reaction all the time. It sounds really manipulative but only works when it is perceived as genuine.
Do I say certain things because I want my way or do I really care about your feelings too?

Did Jesus ever argue? He mastered the skill of the "love language". People came to him with an agenda and they walked away feeling challenged about their own lives, he pretty much left them speechless. He knew peoples motives and cared about them and then communicated in a way they understood. E.g. the general, the rich man, the accusers who used religious language... he responded to them in their language. He answered a question with a question and the only people he offended were the Pharisees because they thought they were God and prevented people from knowing God.

In terms of arguing, yes you pick your battles. Did Jesus ever argue? Does arguing have a value to it. Are there different levels of arguing?
There is arguing were there is a cross fire of bullets. This is only going to escalate. The only way out or to peace is to create a timeout. I don’t think this is beneficial.
And then there is a type of arguing, it's not really arguing, it's just a persistence to put your point of view in that manner which will be most effective. E.g. a camel through a key hole vs. a brood of viper or driving out the den of robbers. In all these situations, He is straight forward to the point and pretty much just says a maximum of two sentences.

Is there a value to arguing? I think there is a value to communicating different point of views. And people communicating them as honest and fully as they feel about them without personally offending the other party e.g. I think your idea is stupid. But to make them feel respected but challenging the idea e.g. so you think that this is the ultimate truth, why, but don’t you think that means that xyz, that's like saying xyz