Argument
Argument, Method 1: Someone presents a point. The other says they are idiots for thinking that way. They go back and forth attacking each other, misrepresenting each other, picking out obscure quotes/points, and elevating themselves as much as possible. It’s all about pride.
Argument, Method 2: Someone presents a point. The other listens to their whole point, looks at the big picture, and ties to see the value of the point. They reconstruct the argument in as favorable view as possible, and then, and only then, they point out something wrong. The original point is changed and improved. Both people walk home happy, because it’s never personal and always respectful. It’s all about trying to discover what makes the most sense or what is actually true.
I’m writing about this because in school, we used Method 2. I was a philosophy major, but I don’t remember a single contentious day in class. Ever. We just didn’t argue like that.
Politics, on the other hand, uses Method 1 exclusively. And lots of people do too, in everyday life. I’m reading a book right now and it is awful. I would really like to agree with them, but instead of calmly presenting a reasonable argument, they simply say, “Certain people are wrong and disillusioned (even listing them by name), and we are right and so much better than them.” I mean, there is little to no actual discussion of ideas and the reasons behind them. They pick sides, misrepresent the other side, and drive me crazy while doing so. They could have been so much more convincing if they didn’t attack people and instead showed how valuable their viewpoint is.
It’s not about US (hooray!) and THEM (boo!). It’s about working together and figuring out the best solution.
