I just read a Medium perspective on “argument” and found myself in complete disagreement. I didn’t look into the author but it was obvious to me that there was at least one generation gap at work. I thought I’d write a short essay on my view of term. To agree or disagree with an opinion held by another individual or party isn’t the point. It’s how well you hold up your end of the bargain. Unless the argument is judged by a third party who knows more about the subject than the “combatants”, no clear “winner” can be established.
Harken back to the golden years of debate when high schools and colleges everywhere had debate teams (while “Debating” is still around, it isn’t the slice of Americana that it once was). The idea was to break a controversial subject into just two sides so it could more effectively be debated. During the era of the debate (the 50’s and 60’s), it wasn’t unusual to have your team’s side of the issue handed to you and, while that perspective may not be reflective of your own or that of your team, at least for the purposes of this one debate, that would be your “side” of the equation. The “game”, if you will, was based on your team’s ability to collectively learn the subject from a circumferential perspective and take the side as provided by the moderator and, say, a week later the two sides would line-up opposite from one another and, with questions carefully chosen beforehand by some team of experts, the gloves would come off and the starting bell would be rung. I’m not sure how the answers or even the questions themselves would be derived, but someone needed to come up with them.
Each team would form an opinion to a given question and be prepared to “argue” their point. In this context, “argument” isn’t a dirty word designed to evoke name-calling and belligerence on the part of either team, rather, every attempt was made to keep things straight-laced and aboveboard. An opinion was just that, nothing more or nothing less. I think in practice, a moderator or panel would decide which team presented the best case for their opinion based on logic, reasoning, and direct knowledge of the subject.
The moderator was truly there to function as a moderator and once one question was handled under the influence of a timer, each side would have had their allotted time and the moderator would provide a few seconds for the given team to provide its final analysis before calling time and moving on. If it was deemed that the “answer” was unsatisfactory, the team would lose a point. Demerits were passed out to any responder not acting in the best interest of his or her team or for not showing the venue appropriate respect in the same way judicial courtrooms were kept under control. Points were scored based on the quality and cohesiveness of the answers which formed the given opinion and a point would be given to the team. Each team would have a captain of the team’s choosing. If there was a stalemate over a given question, each captain would attempt to formulate a reply that was good enough for his team to be awarded the point. During the 1950’s and 60’s, debate teams were taken every bit as seriously as the schools’ football, basketball, or baseball teams. Though “debating” is obviously not an athletic endeavor, it was held in the same level of esteem.
I do not know precisely when there came a close to the debate era, but I surmise that it was some time in the early seventies. As the years went by, the term “argument ” began to take on a wholly negative perception. A “fight”, of sorts, and a “no holds barred” approach is typically used because “winning”, in the minds of the “competitors” is the only acceptable outcome. This is where things breakdown and, as such, there can be no clear winner. People invariably confuse belligerence with strategy. Ignorance begets belligerence, and belligerence begets violence. There was at one time a reason for the adage “for the sake of argument” and it was considered poor manners to debase, degrade, or otherwise attempt to disparage one’s opponent in the name of “winning” an argument.
Times have changed so much that I would say that we live in a dangerous world. When “arguing” a point with someone who begins to show indications of beligerence, you would do well by exiting the “conversation” unless you feel strongly enough about your opinion to defend it with your body and, potentially, your life. Look at road rage as an example. Often, words aren’t even exchanged but one or both parties were offended by what one or both of the contenders did while driving. If you feel your blood pressure begin to rise, begin to sweat profusely, and feel what can only be anger welling up within your person, you are being overwhelmed by your primal instinct to fight in lieu of taking flight and finding the next exit off the highway. Civilized thinking has gone out the window and both drivers, along with dozens of innocents, are at risk of major bodily harm unless one of the drivers takes the high road and makes that all-important decision to exit, stage right.
Many people in our society today are just one spark away from becoming a fury of fire and have narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies that make them dangerous to be around. Remember, at its roots a road rage incident on a highway is nothing more than an “argument” that has turned physically dangerous, where the cars themselves become the weapons and the driver’s, the aiming devices. A not-so-obvious solution to this burgeoning problem (which is a symptom of a society gone wrong), is to think-through precisely what you’re going to do in the likely event that this eventually happens to you. In this way, you’re preparing for the worst in the event that the worst ultimately happens.
There are opportunities for societal leadership that come at us every day. Perhaps after reading this short piece on argument and debate, you can choose to view it differently in the same way it was thought of in our not too distant past. In most cases, the only person available to judge how well you held up your end of the stick, is you. If you find yourself name-calling or trying to bully someone into agreeing with you, you’ve already lost. Just how long do you think Albert Einstein would listen to such gibberish before he writes you off as being an inconsequential member of the human race, never to give you a second thought.
