DEBATE OR UNDERSTAND

DEBATE OR UNDERSTAND

.

A friend and I have been stuck in a tedious dialog for over a year now.  I began to wonder why he seemed so obsessed with relentlessly contradicting me.  He didn’t just criticize every post on a particular topic, but could not let the subject go…agreeing to disagree.  Concerned for his emotional health, I asked if he was aware of how odd his compulsion seemed.  Hoping to help him identify the source of his peculiar fixation, I ask, “Are you OK?”  He responded by sharing the above quotation.  When he did, I finally understood the problem, but it was not what I expected. 

.

The same interpersonal problem we were having is the same one the world is having  and the United States is having internally.  It is the conflict between victory and understanding.

.

Our Facebook dialog is a perfect example.  He was having a debate.  I, on the other hand, was simply trying to convey personal thoughts and feelings.  In my mind, winning or losing was not an issue.  I was not competing.  

_.

Most of the time, when I post something on the Web, it is “me” expressing myself.  Unlike the purpose of an argument or a debate, my goal is communication not winning.  When it comes to rating my posts, I base a scale that judges how well the ideas or the emotional content gets delivered.  The evaluation ranges from perfect, to OK, and at the bottom…not good.  Honestly, I seldom, if ever, reach the gold metal first place I’m shooting for.

.

Nevertheless, my posts and my subsequent responses are attempts to clarify meaning or express emotion, never if ever, to achieve victory over my detractors.  One day, I may present a thoroughly developed case for thinking and feeling the way I do, but I am holding that in reserve.  The one-upmanship of a debate does not lend itself to the mutual growth and understanding.  Understanding requires a less competitive form of interchange.  That is why I found my friends unending arguments boring at best, and annoying at their worst.  

.

The thing that makes social media attractive is more than access to information but the opportunity to broadcast and receive our own personal thoughts and feelings.  Even though, I often use corroborating evidence to reinforce my ideas, I am disappointed when I receive a shared impersonal video rebuttal, by some “expert,” instead of a direct contrasting view from the actual person.  Such sources can support what you think or feel, but they cannot tell me why you feel or think as you do.  It is the opposite of intimate self-expression.  The most effective means of understanding and being understood is unmediated personal exchanges of ideas and feelings.    

.

Unfortunately, growth and understanding were not the aim of my persistent friendly critic.  He expected me to comeback with some powerful rebuttal, loaded with the video experts.  Instead, I unwittingly answered with more precisely worded expressions of my inner thoughts and feelings.  Seeing my responses as weak arguments, rather than self-disclosures, he habitually felt compelled to shoot down my responses as unreasoned foolishness.

.

When I finally realized the actual nature of our conflict, I wrote him, saying something like, “I'm sorry, but I have been trying to tell you and other possible readers, either how I feel or what I think about a topic.  While I value confrontations that broaden my understanding, no amount of argumentation can change my personality; because what I write is an expression of how God has shaped me.  You're debating.  I'm divulging.”

.

Sadly, we both missed the cause for our wearisome and monotonous dialog.  Our conversational goals were different.  He sought victory, while I sought examination.  My goal was not winning, but interpersonal understanding. I believe, as a rule of human interaction, be they personal, intra-national, or international it is true:

.

You can win without understanding or understand without winning, but you cannot have both.  My preferred alternative is, make understanding what I seek to win.