Arguing

I love to argue.



I don't like the things that are associated with arguing, like getting heated, yelling, screaming, bitching and all that good stuff. To me, that stuff is the opposite of what arguing is about.



However, I do love the task of taking what I know, comparing it with another person, and combining what we both know to learn something together. It's fucking beautiful if you think about it. I see way too many instances of people arguing in ways that don't aim at getting to the truth and it makes me sad. Again, I believe that arguments, when done right, are beautiful. But when they're done wrong, they turn uglier than a motherfucker.



The purpose of an argument is to get to the deepest truth of a matter. I see way too many people that, when arguing, will push and push and push their position, in hopes of winning the argument, not because their position is really the deepest truth. They care more about winning the argument/proving the other person wrong then finding out what is real. Whether or not this is because they care more about winning or proving the other person wrong, I don't care, but I see this happen for both of those reasons, and it's stupid and selfish IMO. I see this way too often and it pisses me off. I'd go as far as to say that this way of arguing impedes progress and encourages ignorance.



I hate it when people resort to getting heated, yelling, screaming, bitching and all that good stuff when they argue. I know it's a very effective method for winning an argument, but it does nothing when it comes to getting to the deepest truth of a matter. The strength of an argument should be in the merit of the argument, not in who can yell louder.



I guess I could group interrupting someone during their argument with that last paragraph. haha. that shit pisses me off too. When I argue, I try to stay as calm as possible, listening to the other person's argument, premise by premise, all the way to their conclusion. In my eyes, when someone interrupts someone they are arguing with, it just makes the interrupter look bad because they can't even hear out the other person's argument. They have to resort to interruption because their argument just isn't strong enough to stand alone. They need to supplement their weak argument by interrupting their opponent's train of thought. If your argument was really that strong, you wouldn't have to resort to stupid shit like yelling and interrupting. The sign of a great arguer is the ability to listen calmly and patiently to an
opponent's argument, without interruption, and then calmly arguing why their opponent is wrong and then presenting his/her own argument.



Imagine this: you're watching two people argue. One is yelling and screaming their argument, face redder than a dog's dick. The other is sitting there calmly and actually listening to their opponent's argument. They patiently wait their turn and then present their argument, just to be interrupted mid-sentence by their opponent. Who looks bad in this situation?



The other day, I was in an argument that turned sour. I saw two people, I'll call them Carl and Junior, arguing passionately over a matter that I considered trivial. They were arguing about whether or not every leader in the Roman Empire was called Caesar. They started yelling, so
I decided to speak my mind, telling the two how they were wasting their time getting heated over a stupid argument when there are much bigger and more interesting things they could argue about. I brought up misogyny, something I had learned about in class that day. Carl and
Junior decided to drop their argument and attack me, saying that history was very important and that I was being stupid trying to change the argument, or something like that.



This is where something went wrong. Carl and Junior thought I was arguing that history isn't important. At this point, a third party, who I'll call Jack, jumped in and contributed to the argument that I was stupid for saying that history was worthless. Together, they proceeded
to lecture me about the importance of history and that I was being ignorant and something something something.



Now, that was not even close to what I was trying to point out. If I were to say that history isn't important, I deserved to be stoned to death point blank period. History is very, very important. I was simply saying that arguing over whether or not rulers were given the title of "Caesar" is almost trivial when you consider other matters in history that they could argue over instead. They could take that passion that they had over the "Caesar" title and use it to argue over what really led to the fall of the Roman Empire and whatnot. I'm not a big history buff, nor am I very well read on history, but I think that it would be a lot more fun and a lot more interesting to debate about.



But they kept telling me that I was wrong, and I kept arguing that I wasn't. The difference is that they were yelling, screaming, and interrupting while I was sitting there, patiently listening to their arguments. Eventually, Carl told me to "Just drop it. You're outnumbered."



I think I kind of digressed with that example. lol. But the point I wanted to bring up is that losing an argument should be based on the strength, or lack thereof, of your argument, not on whether or not you are outnumbered. I believe that when you are alone in your argument, that is when you should push harder. Not harder in the sense of yelling, screaming, arguing, interrupting, bitching and all that good stuff, but in the sense of gathering some courage and stating why your
argument is right, no matter how much you are outnumbered. Imagine if everyone gave up arguing when they were outnumbered. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head right now, but I'm sure you can think of an example of someone who was outnumbered but stayed
persistent and succeeded in their endeavors.



I also hate it when people say that someone needs to "just drop it." This just screams out that they are running out of arguments to make and it shows weakness IMO. I never like to "just drop it," because it means that no conclusion was made and the only thing resulting from these types of arguments is hatred and resentment. I actually love it when someone brings up an argument I had with them a while ago, and tells me what they thought I was wrong about. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong. I'm only human and I love to admit my mistakes. I love to show that I'm not perfect, and I love surrounding myself with people that know that they're not perfect either. This leads me to another point.



I love it when people, when presenting or joining an argument, will tell everyone involved in the argument straight up what they do and do not know about the argument. It shows humility and that they don't care about whether or not they are right, but that they want to expand their
knowledge and find out the truth of the matter. That humility lightens up the mood and starts the argument off on a light note, whereas going into an argument assuming that you are right will only lead to bickering and bantering and stupid shit. Seriously, next time you find yourself presenting an argument, try to sound as humble as you possibly can. You'll find that your arguments flow much more smoothly and have a much more light-hearted tone.



Being humble actually works with almost everything, but I digress lol. The Lakers-Celtics game is on soon, so I'm gunna try to wrap this up.



Argue the right way, and I guarantee you'll come out of the argument feeling INFINITELY times better then you would if you argue the wrong way. Having two people come together, debate on stuff they've picked up on in life, and coming out of the argument with a better understanding of the matter than they did before is seriously, a beautiful ass thing. I hope I stressed the beauty of proper argument enough haha. It really is a sick ass thing to watch when two people argue and come out of it better off then when they went into the argument.



If you disagree with me on any of this, lemme know. Let's argue about it lol