Note: This was originally written for an English class. The original title is “A Polemic on Discussions”. Slightly edited from the original version as well.
Our society (that of the United States, that is) is bombarded by dichotomies from political debates to an adversarial court system. In fact, the forms of argument in the sense of one side being necessarily correct and the other side being necessarily incorrect seem so deeply embedded within our society that it’s no wonder senseless banter founded on poor logic and poorer evidence runs rampant through our society. It is not this poor logic that angers me, however, but the idea that one side is necessarily right while the other is necessarily wrong. In fact, my anger extends beyond that one side must win; it encompasses just how hard-headed people can be when they refuse to attempt to understand others’ arguments.
It makes me angry because I believe that the point of argument or discussion should not be simply crushing one’s opponent by exploiting holes in their arguments, but rather should be a way to gain insight or knowledge about how the “other side” thinks. And many times it is difficult for the individual to come up with all possible arguments regarding certain topics, and much harder still for the individual to find good logic and supporting evidence for possible arguments. It is for this reason that my roommate constantly reminds me (though he has no need to do so, as I have already taken this to heart) that the most stupid thing one can do is surround his/herself with people who think the same as you.
Which is not to say that one should argue at every possible moment, or prove to those people who think differently that they are wrong. Because sometimes they are not wrong. Sometimes you are.
Once I was in an unpleasantly heated discussion about affirmative action in #ld4all. My argument was that affirmative action, though unfair now, was necessary in the past to encourage racial minorities to do such things as enter the medical field. I don’t remember many other members’ arguments, but Slinking_Ferret argued that affirmative action was unfair even in the past, as it was unfairly racist in a time when all races were supposed to be considered equal. It occurred to me to apply that argument to the present situation about affirmative action, but using the same argument to say why it was unfair in the past made me wonder whether racial minorities might have relied more on their race and less on their abilities then and now, thus breeding more diverse but less intelligent student bodies. It also made me wonder whether problems we currently face with affirmative action could have been avoided if it were not enacted in the past. In short, being confronted by someone with a different opinion made me ask questions I would have never considered before.
Which brings me back to my main point. I would never have asked myself those questions if I did not try to understand the other side. It is impossible to learn anything if all you are doing is trying to prove the other side wrong. Essentially, I wish people would use arguments as a springboard to learn more about the world rather than as a method to prove one’s self right and boost one’s ego.