Argument vs. Discussion

Debates, discussions, and arguments are the ways by which any democratic and progressive society shares its ideas and views about various issues. These are the ways that we all use to exchange our thoughts, ideas, and concerns with each other. The main aim of these interactions is to try to share and understand each other's point of view. Debates normally happen in a very formal setting, but discussions and arguments are more informal, so informal that they can be a part of any social or family gathering. I am sure each one of us can relate to the fact that arguments and discussions have become such an integral part of our personal and professional lives we do not even realize how often we engage in such exchanges. With the invention and immense popularity of social media we are not even restricted by geographical boundaries, we can discuss or argue with anyone, anytime, from anywhere in the world. At the same time, with the internet, we have instant access to a vast amount of information, it is entirely up to us how much information we can consume. However, there is one question we need to ask, did all this improve the quality of our interactions with each other? No doubt, all the progress in technology did improve the number of our interactions. We do interact very often and with many more people, it was physically impossible without social media to keep in touch with so many people at the same time, that hurdle got removed, thanks to various social media platforms. But what about the quality of our interactions? Do we understand each other better? Are we more tolerant of each other's views? Do we have more consensus about certain political or social issues? OR, do we argue unnecessarily? Are we more polarized than ever? Do we only oppose each other on partisan lines but more venomously? Are we more segregated than united? I am sure if each one of us honestly asks these questions to ourselves, and seek honest answers, we might be able to improve the quality of our interactions and take full advantage of this unique opportunity provided to all of us by this amazing technological revolution for the betterment of our society.

Arguments and discussions are fundamental parts of any democratic society, they both serve unique purposes. Arguments are normally about asserting our own point and rebutting the other side's arguments, there is a confrontational premise from the beginning, both parties know that there is a difference of opinion and they are on opposite sides (debate is one such example of an argument is a very formal setting). However, the discussion is supposed to be more friendly and conducive where we try to understand other's points of view and explain our side to them. Both of them involve the give and take of thoughts, but the intentions and styles are different. In an argument we want the other side to accept that our point is more valid than their own point. However, in the discussion, the aim is not to convince but to understand each other, the intention behind the discussion is to explain our side and try to understand what's the logic and rationale behind the other side's views on the same topic. Discussions can be more useful in social settings than arguments to understand different views about the same topic. We first need to understand each other before we start arguing to convince each other who is right. Both arguments and discussions require certain skills, but the problem is that we all think that we have those skills and it's the other person who doesn't know how to argue or discuss. Let's reflect on our own behavior and try to discuss more and argue less. After all, if we all claim that we want to do something better for humanity then how come our common goals cannot even allow us to have a civilized discussion about any issue, no matter how sensitive that issue is.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic. 

To understand is not to condone

If I understand why people need religion, do I support it? If I understand why religion makes people kill other human beings without having any remorse, do I support such killings? If I argue for some issues propagated by some particular political party, do I support that political party? During regular discussions, while discussing various social and political issues whenever I try to argue about a less popular side or another side of the issue, people often misunderstand that I support the side about which I am arguing. The explanation, that I don't support that side, but I understand it and I want to bring those points into discussion doesn't register very well with most people. Many think that you cannot argue for any side unless you support it. Well, this may be true with many people, but not with me. During any discussion, if there is no representation for another side of the issue then there is no point in discussing that topic. There are very few topics about which there is universal condemnation but for all others, it is very important to know about all sides before drawing any conclusions. As Alan Dershowitz puts this in his book, Letters to a Young Lawyer, he writes, "To understand is not to condone, but to enlighten and perhaps to prevent the same mistake others have made." It is very important to understand that "to understand is not to condone." There is a huge difference between understanding any issue, arguing about it, or representing it in any debate, and wholeheartedly supporting it. 

For me monotonous discussions are boring. I am not interested in praising any political party or political leader unconditionally to the level of worshipping them and projecting as if things what I support are the ONLY right things. I also don't like venomous one-sided criticisms without much rationale and logic to an extent to project things in an extremely bad light. I like to have a representation from another side, if there is no one, then I volunteer to represent that side. In a liberal group, I try to represent the conservative side, and in a conservative group, I try to bring up the liberal point of view. This makes it possible to see why people criticize some particular ideology and how rational their criticism is. Very often people consider me a supporter of that particular ideology or political group (the group they oppose), which is wrong. Yes, I do have certain political preferences, but I don't support any particular political party.

Many people don't understand the importance of having a representation from another side in a discussion. This is particularly challenging in political discussions, as a politically independent person, if you try to argue the good and bad points of each political side, people often get confused. The normal expectation is that a person will choose a particular political party or a leader and defend or attack them vehemently. People try to support their chosen party, no matter what, and try to criticize their opponents, no matter what. But, if they don't see such a clear loyalty or animosity, they get confused. I have been the victim of such confusion many times. I don't mind this, as many times this is an unavoidable situation. I feel that if people understand and learn to look at both sides and try to understand the good and bad points of both the sides in any argument or debate, we will see much less political polarization and much more bipartisan collaboration.

There is no ideology or political party which is perfect with answers to all the problems. Very often best answers to questions are scattered through all over the political spectrum and we need to consider many issues before making a final decision on any major policy issues. But very often the political supporters of these leaders and parties don't understand this and fall in a trap of political polarization to the advantage of these parties and leaders. Polarization always helps someone to win an election, but it rarely helps a nation to move forward. Please understand the need to be fair to people whom you criticize, it is very necessary to understand the opponent's points of view clearly to be able to criticize it properly. Otherwise, that criticism has no value other than political rhetoric or angry passionate rants, which can be used in politically charged speeches for the supporters of that own party but are useless for any conducive political policy discussion. Try to understand opponents' views first, before commenting about them, maybe it will help to shape your own views in a much better way.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Difference between understanding and agreeing

Last week I had a long chat with one of my friends on the subject of religion and God. This was not the first time we had this discussion and I also know that this subject is a never-ending subject and almost everyone has strong beliefs or opinions about this subject. During this discussion many times my friend said that I was not able to understand what he was trying to tell me. I was surprised by that because we were talking in English (the language which I understand reasonably well) and I understood very well what he was trying to tell me, but I didn't agree with him on some of his points and that's when he repeatedly used this sentence. I think this happens during most of our discussions, whenever someone doesn't agree with what we say we tell them that they are not able to understand our point and that's why they don't agree with us. As if if they really understand our point of view, then they will or must agree with it. It might be true in some of the cases (that they really don't understand and that's why they don't agree) but this may not be the case all the time. Many times (like in this case) the other person may understand totally what we want to say and may still disagree with us. I think this is very normal in most arguments and we don't take it personally when that happens. But if we are arguing or discussing something that we totally believe or are passionate about (like religion or God), then we don't want to accept the fact that our core beliefs can be wrong (as another person is opposing it or arguing about them) or people might have some alternatives to these beliefs (their own beliefs which are totally different than ours). 

This made me think about the topic of today's post, why do we always think that if people don't agree with us they don't understand us and they don't know about that subject as much as we know? Why can't we live with the fact that we all have different personalities with different thinking patterns and are bound to have totally different views about the same issues? It's always good to share our views with others and discuss them or debate about them, it helps us to update our knowledge and improve our thinking process, improves our communication skills. Discussions and arguments are very essential part of our life and very necessary for our intellectual growth, but why can't we agree that we can have some disagreement and that's totally fine? I guess the root cause of this problem lies in our traditions or the way in which organized religion is preached. If you read most of the popular scriptures they have their own style of preaching and most of them want their followers to believe that all people who don't follow that particular religion are living the life of ignorant or fool. Nonfollowers are often considered as people walking on the wrong path, who fail to understand what is 'real' or 'ultimate truth' which that book claims to reveal to us. The same mentality makes us believe that people who don't agree with us don't understand what we want to say.

I discuss with many people various subjects ranging from science, politics, and religion. My aim is to share my views and get to know others' views, I started this blog with the same intention. This helps me to improve my own knowledge. I don't want everyone to follow what I say or believe, that's not the purpose of my discussions or blog posts. I just want to share my thoughts. Many times during our discussions I and the other person involved in the discussion agree that we both are right and there can be more than one way to solve the same problem. But this rarely happens when the subject of discussion is related to religion or God simply because we are never taught in those books that there can be any alternate way to whatever that book wants to teach us. I think still human race has not evolved to such a level where we all understand that it's foolish to kill others over religious differences. I agree that it never happens as frequently as it used to happen in the past but still, religious intolerance is one of the major problems and reason for riots and hatred in many societies and cultures.

So how to solve this problem or is there any solution for this? Of course, those books are not going to offer any solution even though they all try to teach us kindness, truthfulness, and love because they never teach us that there can be more than one way to reach the same destination. So, even after learning about love, kindness, tolerance, patience, and many good things from those books people are ready to kill others just because they don't agree with some of the things mentioned in that book or they follow some other book. It is true that in general people are tolerant towards each other and that's the reason our species still exists on this planet otherwise we have enough power and weapons to destroy this whole planet because of any disagreement. In business no company can say or accept that another company's product is better than theirs, are we doing the same thing in the case of religion? For me best possible way to solve this problem is to accept the fact that there is bound to be some disagreement on whatever opinions or beliefs we have and that's totally fine. If another person understands my point of view then it doesn't matter to me whether he/she agrees to it or not. I can explain to him/her my point of view until he/she understands it and after that, it's totally up to that person to decide whether he/she wants to agree with me or not. Discussions and debates are not battles or wars where one party has to win and the other should lose. Why can't it be like a duet song, where both say their part and express their feelings and end it with some or no conclusion. Let's stop fighting wars and start singing duets.


Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.


(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)