I've begun to notice that a person's philosophy is almost entirely determined by their feelings. Feelings which rarely or never change after early childhood. (Concept used mathematically; we don't know what happens in early childhood.)
It would appear that a person adopts the philosophy that most closely matches these feelings.
It could also be closely matching to some other internal, non-logical criteria.
In either case, it would appear that logic is better used to expand the person's existing philosophy, rather than attempting to replace it.
So I would like to do an experiment. Tell me a little bit about your philosophy, and about a problem it has. I will attempt to find a solution to that problem that is acceptable to you.
I believe this is a win-win proposition for you - if I fail, you will at least understand your problem better, while if I succeed, you will have a solution.
Still, this is a brand new technique. It will most likely have problems and I won't succeed on the first try. For example, I may simply try to adapt my philosophy to your problem, which would defeat the purpose.
Of course I'm going to do this anyway, and tell you about it. You should know what I think of a problem, so that you can put what I eventually find for you in context.
I will not attempt to convince you either way. I will only construct a solution, which you may accept or reject on the merits you ascribe to it. Counter-points will be taken as a request for refinement.
Like all technology, philosophy is a tool that should serve the user, not the other way around.
Ask not what you can do for philosophy; ask what philosophy can do for you.