So I've noticed that there seems to be a strong distinction between the way that Ti users and Te users argue. In an argument I call the Ti user, "The film critic". Film critics will watch a movie, and pick it apart and tell you what's all wrong with it, and Ti users are basically the same way. In an argument a Ti user will poke holes in other's logic, they will tell people what is wrong with their argument, and will point out discrepancies in others arguments. Oh, and in case you were wondering, by dependencies I mean that they will say things like, "Ok you said this, then this, and then this. All of that contradicts each other and doesn't add up." The Ti user is not convinced that someone else is right unless you are able to convince them that your argument is logical to their internal system of logic.
Te users on the other hand are a bit different. When a Te user argues they tend to have more of an empirical approach: The Te user will reference external facts and point out how what the other person is saying is not congruent with known external facts. The Te user will also reference works of known professionals in the field and talk about how what you say is in-congruent with this known expert in the field's research. Finally, the Te user will present evidence that is clearly in front of you both, in order to prove to you that you are wrong. This is why I call the Te user the lawyer, because lawyers have a similar approach in a court room: they present evidence in the court room and the verdict is all based on evidence that is gathered.
Would you all agree?