Arguing Better

Before scrolling down to read the rest of this post,i want you to play this little game with me. Try to remember the last really heated argument you had with someone. From that argument try to remember what you remember more vividly,the points that the person you were arguing with made or the points that you made?

From that little game,most of us are going to give the latter as our answer and that's exactly what is wrong with the way we argue. There is nothing wrong with engaging in argument with someone,as long as we do it right. Think of arguments as televised political debates (or more ,how televised political debates should be) except that, obviously they are way less formal and you and the person you arguing with is not Trump and you are not Clinton .i digress. The point i am trying to make is that arguments,done right,can offer a chance for the parties involved to exchange ideas and try to point out why they think they are right and the other party is wrong but with most people,they engage in arguments to simply prove why they are right,choosing to be oblivious to the other party's point of view and it is a habit that is hard to shake off because it is human nature.

On James Redfield's The Celestine Prophecy,he mentions the forth insight from the manuscript as the habit of human beings to compete for energy,even resorting to stealing each other's energy to supplement our own and all this happens unconsciously hence i call it human nature. Applying the Celestine Prophecy logic regarding transfer of energy to an argument scenario,what happens is that when one party feels like they are losing an argument,because this feeling of loss tends to seep their energy,what they would do is try to (unconsciously) "steal" the other person's energy by ensuring that they say whatever it takes to "win" the argument,no-matter how illogical.

In short,most people simply argue not to hear what the other person is saying but to win the argument,which is dumb because then if neither parties will not be willing to concede defeat,it is going to be like that age old paradox "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object". Even if one of the parties eventually "wins",they would have done so because they have the loudest voice,the scariest argument face or whichever metric is used to measure arguments and definitely not because they made the most logical points.

So how do we go about arguing better?The very first thing we should do is to take emotions out of arguments because once you argue when you are upset,your human nature automatically enters defense mode where you would do anything to not be upset anymore and the only way to do this is to try win the argument,which is exactly what you should not be doing. Before engaging in an argument with someone,we should ensure that we are calm enough to be logical because not being calm automatically means logic is thrown out of the window because of the defense mechanism i just mentioned and we end up saying and doing things we might regret later. After ensuring that you are calm during the argument,the next step to do is to ensure that we listen attentively to what the other person is saying. Do not just listen to reply but rather listen to process and then formulate a reply,if it is warranted. There is nothing wrong not having a response to what the person you are arguing with just said but our human nature disagrees so it always drives us to always reply even in situations where a reply was unwarranted. 

The whole point of "arguing better" is to not ensure that you win every argument you engage in but to rather ensure that you leave every argument having learnt enough from the other person to make you a better person. An argument where both parties are just fighting to come out on top with a bigger ego is a waste of time and energy for both parties. No one learns anything,feelings get hurt and hurtful things which have a far reaching and lasting impact are said. Instead of engaging in an argument to verbally fight each other, you should instead engage in argument to build each other and this building each other other happens by sensibly exchanging logical points about why you think you are right and why you think the other party is in the wrong and vice versa.

When you "argue well",you will not have a problem with stopping in the middle of the argument and simply saying "you know what,you are right and i am wrong" because you were arguing not to establish superiority over the person but to listen,process and eventually come to the conclusion that "hey,the points you are making are way more logical and sensible than the ones i'm making". If at the end of an argument you cannot remember what the other person was saying or what you learnt from them during that exchange,then it was a terrible argument even if your ego got bigger from "winning" it.


  1. Thank u. I gues iv bin arguin al d tym 2 prove a point.๐Ÿ˜Šlesson learnt.

    1. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿพ...That’s what most of us try to do and we end up either saying whatever it it takes to prove that our point takes presedence over the other person and hence a boosted ego


Post a Comment