Dialogue and Debate

“How to Win Every Argument” by Eric Barker gives a perspective of what usually happens in an argument. Eventually, your mentality sways to do whatever you can to win an argument and show that you are right. Both parties are at fault and instead of having true dialogue, working toward understanding each other’s viewpoints, the discussion turns more into a messy debate. This reminds me of how Mary Scannell describes the difference between dialogue and debate in The Big Book of Conflict Resolution Games: Quick, Effective Activities to Improve Communication, Trust and Collaboration. She states, “A debate is a discussion with the goal of persuading or advocating for their own view, attempting to prove the other side wrong, and searching for flaws and weaknesses in the other’s positions. In dialogue, the intention is to really listen to one another’s perspective with a willingness to be influenced by what we hear.” So what is your goal, to have dialogue or a debate? Just like the article implies when we have the evidence and our intentions are to solely prove the other person wrong leads to that individual hating you. The goal wasn’t to make a new enemy. All in all, maybe winning an argument isn’t the best outcome after all. As Barker states, “Losing an argument can be a learning experience that benefits you the rest of your life.”