As a rational being we always have choices. For instance, say you and i. i like apples but not orange and you like orange and not apples. Now, when i already know that i like apples because i have researched about it, eaten it and i like, for you to pursuade me to start liking oranges, i think you want to tell me good things about oranges before telling me bad things about apples. I am saying this metaphorically. If people like the king, let them like him, or if they like the parties let them like them. but if you like the king, then you should tell all good things about king. if you like the parties,then you tell good things about the party. I think that is a more mature approach to pursuade someone to agree with you, unless you don't want anyone to agree with you or don't want to agree with anyone. if you buy a toyota, you must like it completely, unless you've always desired a mercedes but couldn't afford and settled for a toyota. but you could have also got a honda for the same price, then why toyota, or even honda. you must have your own reasons to believe what you like, but don't have reasons to not accept what others are saying. you can comment and opionate, but do not attack anyone personally. but saying good things about someone you like is not being chamcha or royalist.gandhi is loved by all but equal number of people think he was the reason of india-pakistan conflict. so, is gandhi good or bad. it's up to you. you think he is good, you are not gandhi's chamcha, you like his work. you don't like him, you are not a radical, you just don't like his work.