I tend to come down on the side of Dude and aquinas on this one. If she wants to win, then give her a way to win that's a true win for everyone involved. I'm also from a questioning background, but I've learned to live within enough aspects of the status quo by looking for consensus big picture principles and goals.
More, rather than less, explanation is generally my m.o. And I also (with safety exceptions) will respect children's letter-of-the-law arguments when they arise from my own lack of specificity. At the same time, we've also had discussions about "reasonable person" interpretations of looser language, and the responsibility of individuals to seek clarification when they perceive ambiguity. And, verbal language as only one component of the overall communicative purpose of verbal and nonverbal language. That is, if one intentionally obscures meaning by taking the technically-correct-but-commonly-unexpected sense of a verbal interaction, without seeking further clarification first--especially if done to subvert another person's intent, then one is questionably acting in good faith, which, over time, has a tendency to erode the foundation of trust between two communicative partners. This creates a situation where one may "win" the argument, but lose in the larger relationship. If the relationship in question has mid- or long-term value or utility to one, then this would appear to be counterproductive.
In short, communication often operates in service to relationships. Relationships (and communication) are based on trust. Constant "gotcha" argument-winning is not always conducive to building trust.
This is also, used the other direction, one of the ways we explain the occasional need for instant, unquestioned obedience. There are moments where imminent danger overrides our typical pattern of lengthy, thorough explanations. Since our children know that explanations are typically offered to the extent we are able to, in the event that we ask for immediate response, without an explanation, this usually means that the urgency of the situation provides insufficient time for an explanation. Based on the foundation of trust that we have already established, the children know that their parents would not ask them to do something unquestioned if it were not an emergency, and that it would always be with their best interests in mind, to the best of our ability.
On a practical, lighter note, I've found that, sometimes, face-saving is critical. At some point, one particular child may reach a point where they may have painted themselves into a corner verbally, but actually do understand the reason for compliance, and would do so, if they could without formally backing down. In those moments, we've tried (especially earlier in childhood) diversions and displacements. This example isn't fully a logical argument one, but it does illustrate face-saving. We had a period where there was strong resistance to flossing teeth (resulting in multiple fillings--fortunately, in baby teeth only). After many battles over flossing, in which it was thoroughly explained that this was a health and hygiene issue (and, BTW, lack of flossing was causally related to that undesirable tooth drilling exercise), DC understood and agreed with the reasoning, but refused to lose. This is why for many months afterward, we flossed DC's "baleen" instead.
Last edited by aeh; 03/07/18 10:04 AM. Reason: grammar
