My partner once said he had not met the person who could win an argument with me. For a while I wore that statement like a badge of honour – as debater trained to win arguments for sport there could be no higher compliment. But a dawning realisation of the impact my argumentative approach was having on some important personal relationships caused me to reflect on what ‘win at all costs’ might actually be costing me. Here’s what I learned.
- It is more than OK to be wrong. In fact, you might learn something.
In debating, once you get into the argument, the purpose is to win. Any learning you might do as a result of listening to the opposition’s point of view is, at best, something you want to extract from your excited reflection on the twists and turns of the argument only after you have won. In life this approach can lead others to perceive you as arrogant and pig-headed. A stubborn refusal to acknowledge the logic of someone else’s argument can also represent a missed opportunity for you to learn something or, worse, lead to wrong decisions and mistaken actions with untold cost.
- Being wrong does not mean you are not clever.
Debaters are taught that the more clever and persuasive the argument, the higher the likelihood they will win the debate. The corollary of that is that the losing argument must have been mounted by someone with less intellectual rigor or capacity. Whether or not these things are true in debating, they are definitely not true in life. To start with there are people who are smarter than you – and you can learn from them. Also, depending on what you are talking about, you may not have all the information required to mount a cogent argument. If you’re arguing with someone who has more information than you guess what? Another opportunity for learning.
- Winning an argument can come at a cost
In a formal debate you are not necessarily arguing with friends, or even people you will have to speak with again. This, coupled with the imperative to win, encourages approaches which, if used in a conversation or argument with a friend could well damage the relationship. I have learned this through bitter experience. Although, of course, quality argument is the best winning strategy, tactics such as belligerence and personal attacks can be effective in a formal debating context. This is not the case when arguing with someone with whom you plan an ongoing positive relationship. I’ve learnt that many people will struggle to kiss and make up after I’ve said something cruel – that I didn’t really mean – for the sake of winning an argument.
So these days I try to maintain a level of awareness when I’m talking to friends and colleagues. That niggling sense of discomfort when I’m starting to think the other person might be right is not a cue to go harder. Rather it prompts me to think about the opportunity to learn something and all the potential costs of ignoring that opportunity and pressing on regardless.
