The problem behind the argument
Two students working on a presentation seemed to disagree about everything. Polina wanted to meet in person after school, while Yegor preferred to exchange written comments. When a deadline approached, Polina said that he did not care about the project. Yegor replied that she never listened. Neither statement helped them understand the actual difficulty.
A classmate suggested that they describe what they needed without guessing the other person's motives. Polina explained that she found long message threads confusing and worried that a question might remain unanswered. Yegor explained that he travelled a long way home and could not stay late every afternoon. He also needed time to think before responding to a new idea.
Their preferences were different, but their goal was the same: a clear presentation completed on time. They agreed to one short in-person meeting each week, with an agenda prepared beforehand. Between meetings, they would use a document with specific questions and an agreed response time. A question that needed an urgent answer would be marked clearly rather than buried in ordinary comments.
The arrangement did not remove every frustration. Polina still wished that discussion could happen more quickly, and Yegor sometimes preferred a longer period to reflect. However, both could now distinguish a preference from a commitment. If either person needed to change an agreed time, they would say so directly instead of assuming that the other would understand the silence.
After the presentation, they reviewed the process as well as the result. They had not become identical workers, and that was not necessary. The useful change was learning to describe a difficulty, make a specific request and check whether a compromise was realistic. Respectful cooperation allowed disagreement without turning every difference into a judgement of character.