Can you win an argument?

[Jon]

Let's face it, the world is full of conflict. But when we argue, do we win or do we actually lose? You can end up alienating the person you are arguing with. And as the old saying goes, "The person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." If you do a meta analysis, you may win the battle but end up losing the war. Ill feeling gets remember and revenge is just around the corner.

What is your take on it?

 

[Insane_AI]

Jon,

An argument does not require conflict. I enjoy the art of argument and actually blasted a law firm in an interview because the interviewer did not understand the meaning of the word argue. When I informed the person that I enjoy arguing I was informed that the firm doesn't like people like that. I answered back with a question: Is this a law form or not? The incredulity in their voice was delicious because this person couldn't make the connection between attorneys and argument.

When one argues, they present their position for consideration. I understand the term has evolved, colloquially at least, to mean a debate held in conflict but I choose to retain the original meaning. Much like the word 'fag' which used to mean a bundle of sticks for kindling has evolved to mean both a cigarette and a derogatory term for a homosexual, the word argue has evolved; this is the normal course of any language.

Have I hurt your feelings? Have I created conflict and if so is that conflict negative? Have I served as a catalyst for thought? In any case, I have just argued with the entirety of the population that reads this post. It is now up to them to decide if conflict exists, and by extension if they accept my viewpoint as valid.

When it comes to discussing points of conflict with other people, the value of the relationship often dictates how far I am willing to push to make my point. I'm 40 and have been married / with my wife for 21 /23 years; you don't do that without learning how to manage conflict in a healthy manner. We can make an argument a win / win by deciding what is more important between the relationship or the topic.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

AI, congrats on a long-term marriage. I'm heading for 24 years with my wife. You are correct that you need good skills to argue in a way that doesn't cause her to call a divorce attorney. It goes deeper than that. Wifey has finally learned that I can't see dust. (No snickering, please...) I have in the past had a form of macular degeneration such that in less than studio-bright lighting, I often cannot see dust and small objects. It was treated in time to prevent further vision loss, but she now knows that she has to be either forgiving or very specific on topics where the question is "Didn't you see the dirt on the floor?" It took a lot of communication to make her realize that. And she has learned to be patient in what she explains to me. If you don't learn how to CONSTRUCTIVELY communicate then you will have strife and you WILL have arguments.

Back to the topic at hand, ...

I tend to win lots of arguments because I don't enter into the argument unless I have some appreciation of the subject matter. But Hell, I'll even happily argue that black is white. (Which, in computer terms, it is. Just white with the intensity turned to 0. White is equal amounts of its component colors at any intensity. So black is just a shade of white.)

On some topics, there is a question as to whether I get abrasive. I sometimes wish that I could avoid that, but there are topics where you can either be abrasive or you can lose the argument - and I don't like losing. Religion is one of those topics, but I try to draw the line between respecting someone's views and letting someone make a false statement as a way to "prove" a point that they in fact have not proved. As a result, I fear that I sometimes do reach the "alienation" stage that Jon mentioned.