Health & Fitness
The “Art” of Discussion (AKA Argumentation)
I prefer to use the word "discussion" over "argument" because of the popular perception of the latter, but whatever you call it, it can be productive if pursued properly.
There are times we are presented with a point of view with which we do not agree. We then have several paths to choose from.
1. We could choose to “let it go” and move on.
2. We could choose to belittle the person who presented the point of view along with the viewpoint with which we disagree.
Find out what's happening in Woodstock-Towne Lakewith free, real-time updates from Patch.
3. We could try to show the person who presented the viewpoint that they are mistaken, and present the evidence we believe refutes the viewpoint in question, in a reasonable manner.
Option one is a valid choice and there is no shame in simply moving along. Option two is most usually chosen by those who do not have valid and reasonable points to refute that to which they do not agree. They attempt to belittle the viewpoint in the court of public opinion and bully the person who espouses the viewpoint into “shutting up.” As puerile as this tactic may seem, it is very effective.
Find out what's happening in Woodstock-Towne Lakewith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Option three is valid as well, however some misunderstand the tactic of presenting evidence and points of discussion. The simple axiom that goes “An assertion is not a point of discussion, and an analogy is not evidence” goes a long way towards helping a person advance their cause. When evidence is presented, then two reasonable people have something to discuss.
For instance: Fred tells Mary, “The sky is blue”. Joe overhears this and disagrees. He can (one) just move on. He can (2) belittle Fred for his (apparent) lack of knowledge, along the lines of “Fred that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. EVERYONE knows that the sky, in fact, is not blue you idiot! That’s like saying the moon is made out of cheese!” Or, Joe can engage Fred in a conversation. He might say, “Fred, my understanding of the matter is that there are trillions of dust particles floating around the atmosphere. These particles reflect light in the same wavelength of blue light. Thus the sky itself isn’t actually blue, it just appears that way.” At this point Fred can either admit Joe’s point is valid, or he can present his own evidence to support his original statement.
I am always willing to civilly discuss my points of view, and to learn where I am mistaken so I won’t keep making the same mistakes. How about you?
