In arguments there is not as much a contextual battle for who is right due to the information one presents but whom is willing to give up their perceived position of rightness. Debates and discussions are about correct information. Arguments are battles for dominance to prove who is now on top. No matter how many times you prove certain people wrong they will still be seen as victorious if they hold themselves as being correct; or at least not defeated. The person who accepts the other is correct will be the loser only if they accept themselves and admit to being lesser. Being wrong and not standing down from a standpoint of liking yourself and believing in yourself remains you a winner. If one only wants a debate then the context is what truly matters to a person. Who wins or loses is logically irrelevant in the subject of informational accuracy as accurate science is sculpted from many different perspectives until it goes from hypothesis to theory to law. Arguments are petty human things.
Just as a person cannot ever really fail but they can give up, can a person never actually lose an argument. A debate or discussion they can find that the information they present is of lesser accuracy. The same as if one wanted to go to Japan but the first nine ways examined are flawed, one isn’t barred from Japan. It is possible to stop looking for ways though and in that moment then it is impossible to go to Japan. Giving up is what defines lose in both going to Japan and an argument unless you create new dynamics and criteria on which lose is judged.
This is why arguments are mindless and stupid. If one only wants to exert their dominance then one is primitive in the nature of their aims and words. On some level the victory is always going to be empty since achieving such a position of dominance means a creation of a submissive, lesser-ness has been established. If that is the goal then it is destructive and the once higher world has been broken instead of fixed. Creating new, innovating old misconceptions counts as strength and merit worthy where as bashing down and breaking things means the winning option is to stand upon debris. This is not real victory but satisfied anger which is only defended fear.
When people begin to argue they are trying to say that,”You don’t get to feel that way over [BLANK] point.” because they disagree on a perceived emotional reaction to a certain stimulus. Person A wants person B to not feel a certain way and A is angry over it. If person B simply concurs that their reasoning is flawed and agrees to change their opinion but does not show a change in their emotional state then person B will still be angry. When an argument becomes over topics instead of feelings then it is a discussion instead of an argument.
