Arguments, Fights, and Debates, Oh my!

"Yes!" "No!" "Right!" "Wrong and a half!" Human society is very prone to arguing, fighting, and debating over points and facts (especially Americans, but that's the next blog). But why do we disagree? And when is it good? Bad? Worthless? Or just so plain stupid it's hilarious? Here we go.

Because we are humans, capable of feeling emotion and making decisions based on influences other than raw instinct. And because everyone is unique, no two thought processes are exactly the same. (Although Brayden, McKay, and I seem to defy this occasionally, we are all still different, believe it or not.)

Though these three words can be synonymous in certain contexts there are subtle differences. Debating, however long, arduous, or pointless it may seem, can actually bring about positive results for many people. More like a discussion, it is the means by which many opinions can be considered, eventually drawing a conclusion tailored more to the group as a whole. Without debate, dictatorship reigns. In debates, people are allowed to disagree, stay neutral, agree, or assume any position from one side of the spectrum to the other. This creates an infinite number of perspectives that people can consider. Think of the United Nations. Tons of problems, tons of solutions, and tons of people trying to figure out the best way to get there. People are offering their opinion on the best solution all around and an eventual compromise is reached. Even in English, frequent debates create many opportunities to share opinions, interpretations, and viewpoints. People debating are able to see others' sides, and everyone learns. Healthy debating is necessary and conducive to society.

Arguments, however, are a little more one-sided and far less beneficial. People who argue think they must defend not only their point or opinion, but their reputation as well. If their point is shot down or even countered, they fight back in a scramble of facts and support without any consideration of the other side. In most arguments, people tend to deal with only one side of the story. Theirs. Here's a common argument between two children. "I didn't do anything and he just walked up and hit me!" vs. "He pushed me and made a face!" If each child would admit that, "You provoked him, and he responded to you," such a debate would end productively as both learn that their actions affect others and understand why the other acted in that specific way. Arguments are still somewhat factually based, but the facts are more tailored to show how 'right' you are in asserting that over the other.

Moving on to fights, the tables turn. Extremely one-sided, the focus is placed more on how wrong the other person is, and how they should suffer because of it. The wrong actions, the wrong opinion, the wrong attitude, the wrong gang... It doesn't matter how right you are, because the other person is wrong-er. Fights usually result in the exchange of heated words and actions, often degrading. Most sensibility and reasoning has gone. I often ask my siblings mid-fight what their motive is and they always tie it to the other person being wrong. "She hit me!"

In the teenage world, debates, arguments, and fights do occur. That's inevitable. But sometimes they occasionally cause negative results ranging from disbanded friendship, lifetime grudges, or a few hours of contempt. All because of the difference of opinion. If (hopefully when) the two sides eventually make amends, both will have gained greater knowledge and understanding of the other because of the confrontation. Some of the greatest knowledge to be gained of an other is found in understanding their disagreements. When others escalate a small disagreement into an argument or fight it takes a great amount of self-control not to follow. The more defensive we become, the slower we learn what we would have discovered had we been more open from the beginning.

But can people actually argue because they agree? Yes, they can. In my opinion, these are the worst kinds of disagreements, because they produce no result whatsoever. None! It's a dog. But it's Canis domesticus. And? For those of you that have seen my diagram before, sorry, but here it is. These such confrontations exist when persons A and B are debating about their viewpoint on conclusion C. They are looking at the exact same conclusion, based on the exact same ideas and path to get there, with slight variance. The difference? Who knows.

All in all, the end result of disagreements is a greater knowledge of the other side. Well, if you get to the end result. In some situations, that state is never reached (unfortunately). But for all disagreements that end, both parties are more aware of the other side than they were before, as well as their reasoning for seeing the world the way they do. We may have been right, mostly right, wrong altogether, or just stupid, but at least "now you know!"