Week_5_2/12/16_Views on How We Argue

As someone who considers themselves to be argumentative, I see the world around us as argumentative as well.  The society we live in promotes arguing through multiple different ways.  We see debates on TV, arguments in the media, and even the tip jar at the local coffee shop gets people to argue whether cats or dogs are better.  We argue about everything from food, to science, to parenting.  We argue everyday, and we argue in many different styles.  I define arguing as a conversation held between two or more people that is meant to go back and forth between opposing sides on a given subject. 

         Arguing begins just barely after we can speak, and doesn’t stop at a certain age.  There are unsaid rules such as not arguing with your superior and being fair by keeping from lying.  I think that we as a whole have a very contradictory view of arguing.  In some aspects, we see it as rude.  For example, we were all taught at a young age not to argue with our parents, or we were punished for arguing with our siblings.  And in other settings, it’s promoted.  For example, schools have debate teams, we watch political figures argue on TV, and we have Fight Club.

Although our society both promotes and doesn’t approve of argumentation between us, I think it’s given a bad rap.  I see two types of arguing that are categorized by their intent, and only one of them is bad.  The first is malicious arguing.  Malicious arguments can be defined by arguments with the intent of proving someone else wrong, putting someone else down, and a general purpose of hurting another.  Arguments of this type never end on a happy note, and never end with a winner.  Malicious argumentation never ends with a winner because although one’s argument may have overshadowed the other, one (or both) side has taken advantage of the other by using this ‘win’ to feel better about them selves.  Contrasting with malicious arguments are conversational arguments, which serve a light-hearted, intellectual purpose.  Conversational arguments do not end with hurt feelings or a sense of defeat, because conversational arguing is not meant to end with a winner.  But rather these type of arguments end with both sides having a better understanding of each other’s views. 

A phrase that I use to both decide when an argument should be ended, or if an argument is of good or bad nature is, “Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?”.  This phrase was taught to me by my mother, and I hear others say it often.  This phrase gives you an idea of how any argument might end.  If your intent in the argument is to be right, then most likely the argument will end with both of you being unhappy.  But if the purpose of the argument is playful or intellectual in nature, then you needn’t be worried about being unhappy once the argument is over.