An Argument on Arguments

As people communicate with each other, it is quite inevitable for arguments or debates to come up within conversations; this is all part of human interaction and socializing with each other. On the other hand, if wrongly interpreted, these arguments can lead people down paths of animosity and grudges towards others, which is usually not favored by participating parties of such debates.

Daniel H. Cohen highlighted in his TED Talk, "For argument's sake", that there are three different perspectives when it comes to interpreting arguments or debates. The first is a dialectical model in which we think of arguing as wars and conflicts; this is often the most common form of arguments. The second model would be arguing for proofs, as a mathematician would with their proofs; this involves the usage of facts and truths to back claims made. The third and last model would be arguments as performances, similarly to what politicians do in front of an audience. Cohen continues on to state that most people have a "win or lose" mentality when participating in debates. Frequently, in the end, if an agreement is not reached then a "metaphorical war" breaks out. However, this mentality is not what an argument should be about; these conversations should be used to learn more about the other person and their perspective rather than be a catalyst for growing hatred.

Commonly, arguments are expected to have both a winner and a loser; in fact, many times when people get into these arguments, they often turn into wars, fighting with the incentive to win. Though this may apply to some cases, the mentality of arguing to win is ultimately toxic in many situations. Instead, it is better to think of arguments as a learning experience; you are able to not only able see another person's perspective on a topic, including their opinions and biases, but you are also able to gain more knowledge, being able to benefit from this exposure to information; furthermore, Cohen states that being at the losing side of the argument may prove to be the better position as you are able to gain more from it.

Personally, arguments can be quite stupid, and I'm not talking about the small arguments over who has to wash the dishes or who has to take out the trash; I'm talking about the type of arguments that result in trying to change someone's existing opinion. Take, for instance, the iPhone and Samsung debate. When arguing for the "superior" brand, iPhone users may try to convince others that their phone is superior, forcing their opinions onto others; in these arguments, there is often nothing to gain by "winning." Referring back to Cohen, "making [someone] believe [something] they don't want to believe" is extremely toxic and does not prove to do any good. Trying to convince others of what we believe is best or true often results in the opposite party sticking with their original opinions; the argument and whole conversation proves to be counterproductive and pointless. However, having friendly, positive debates over these certain topics can prove to be healthy as grudges are not left behind and both parties are able to gain from the points made. In other words, the best option in many arguments would be to agree to disagree, respecting each parties' thoughts and opinions.

— Lana Nguyen