For Argument’s Sake: a personal reiteration.

I have, just earlier today, watched a TED talk by Daniel H. Cohen about arguing. You might ask, “What is it about arguing that is so profound that it deserved a TED talk?” To which I ask in return, “what is the definition of arguing or being engaged in an argument?” To out-reason our opponents, prove them wrong, and, most of all, to win, some will say. But is that really the point? Arguments are not a zero-sum game where one must win and the other must lose, after all, since the loser learns something new, that there is more convincing evidence contrary to what he or she initially knows.

So essentially, arguments should always end in a win-win situation, where the winner gets their egos stroked and the loser learns something new. Keyword being ‘should’, since, as we all know, that this is rarely the case. People get involved in arguments not only to state their opinion and reasons behind it, or to exchange information and come to a conclusion based on statements and evidence presented by both sides, but to be crowned grand champion of having the most right opinion in the first place even if the opposition presented agreeable points in the process.

This sad scenario happens because of the innate competitive drive in our nature. Or indeed in the nature of everything alive. You want to pummel your competition to submission, willing or otherwise, even when doing so is counterproductive. In the wild, it gives a sense of security (it ensures one’s survival, after all), but in civilization, it just gives you a sense of pride, sometimes unjustified. Another reason might be the fact that people are mostly educated into being phobic about making or having made a mistake, but that just leads to the right thinking that they are superior and the wrong are inferior, which was illustrated by the initial point.

The reason I mention this is because I just had an argument barely an hour ago. With the worst possible  opponent – a grumpy old man who is incapable of moving with the times (and the changes that come with it) as well as being pathologically afraid of being wrong. Textbook "short man syndrome” is how one would describe this man, though I honestly hesitate to use the word. The subject of our argument? A Guinness World Record for the highest kick among women. The record, last I checked anyway, was 2.15 meters by the way.

How it started? Well, two people were to kick a small platform with a pin sticking out of the top, which would poke and burst a balloon being held slightly above it when said platform was pushed upwards. Seemed pretty straightforward, didn’t it? Except for the fact that one of them managed to kick the platform without popping the balloon. Said person’s foot only grazed the platform’s surface, as it were. The judges still counted it as a hit, despite the balloon being intact.

So I asked a question – which, to me, was simple and completely justified – “what was the point of the balloon, then?” The record attempt was in front of a live audience so I thought aloud that the effect was meant to for the spectators; probably to excite them or something, the way some spectator sports work I guess – people watching NASCAR for the crashes or rugby or American Football for the clashes and injuries sustained from them. Short grumpy old-fashioned old man then went on to say that the pin and balloon was for an affirmation that the platform below had indeed been kicked. To which I replied by pointing out the fact that the previous attempt was still counted even when the balloon remained intact after the platform was kicked, rendering the pin and balloon redundant. To which he then insisted on his previous point, just adding to the fact that if the balloon popped, it would not require a close-up slow-motion video playback for the judges to consider. I then said it was still redundant because the live audiences were not the judges, and the official judges had access to the video recording which would be working either way, and would still be referred to should the pin and balloon fail to serve their purpose, which they have. In other words, why waste resources, no matter how cheap they may be, in setting up a fallible secondary method of validation when the primary, fool-proof method was already there to begin with? It’s not like watching a video playback would take more than a few seconds anyway.

Instead, of saying “I don’t know,” which was precisely the reason behind my asking the question, or “that was just the decision of Guinness or the organizer,” he uttered his trademark line of “I don’t want to argue with you. You argue for the sake of arguing.” Which I took quite seriously and a bit personally as he says that every single time I succeed in countering an argument of his no matter how valid my rebuttal was. Not being able to take anymore of such bullshit, I confronted him and said that if he had any point to counter my point or defend his, he should just say them until I was convinced, since I was able and willing to do the same. Then came an attack which I can only consider personal: “Before you talk so much, go get a job first.”

Well, what gives? Not only has he failed in in doing his part in the active disagreement, he resorted to personal attacks just to have the last word. Yes, I am currently between jobs, but do I need to have the fact rubbed in my face as retaliation to my argument? By my own father, no less.

This is why if he was to end up in any life-threatening situation, I will do many things – committing suicide included – before I save him. Any anyone trying to convince me that he is a good man with good intentions will be about as successful as anyone trying to convince me that a benevolent monotheistic God exists.

People used to ask me if I had a single most influential role model and my answer was usually ‘no’. In fact, I did and I still do, but for the complete opposite reason. While people try to emulate their role models, I do the complete opposite for the one that has the most influential impact on my moral identity. Which is why anything my father is, I do or try to be as exact an opposite as humanly possible, with the only exception so far is my unfortunate employment status.

And on that bombshell, adieu to y’all.