For Argument's Sake

An argument in and of itself is to hold a position and make the case for that position, that is your argument.  The word however has become synonymous with the exchange between two or more people who hold different positions and their attempts to make the case for their positions.  Rather interestingly there are also same-side arguments which I find fascinating, where two people have the same position and yet they still find conflict between each other and try to defend themselves and their argument from a perceived attack even when in reality both are making the same argument they just don't recognise that fact.

Arguments in general are often created or exchanged in the pursuit of a settlement, an outcome that declares one side victorious.  I've discussed the nature of debate before and how it differs from arguments in that it doesn't actually seek a resolution - at least not when done right.  Arguments on the other hand seem to be a form of verbal warfare where one side must triumph over the other.  It is rare for them to conclude in concessions that see a compromise on both sides, it is inevitable it seems that one side will be perceived to have won the most whilst giving the least ground.

What I do find interesting about the nature of arguments is that they can be had over almost anything and you can make a case for almost any position you want to hold.  No matter how hopeless it may seem, if one is adept in the art-form one can make a convincing case.  That in and of itself is rather disturbing.  Further still it is often the case that arguments are had and continue to be made by people even when they realise they are in the wrong or that their position is not as they understood it to be, in those moments something peculiar happens, where the desire not to admit you are wrong overrides the desire to want to be wrong, and the result is that you pursue victory in the argument even when you have realised, privately, that you are in the wrong and that even if you were victorious it would be a detriment to you - also known as a Pyrrhic victory, named after King Pyrrhus who was victorious over the Romans but in victory lost almost everything to such an extent that losing would have actually been preferable.

Still of all the desire to be victorious overrides our judgement of what that would entail, none more frequent than when engaging in an argument.  For an argument at its core is not a debate, it is not motivated by logic and reason, nor is it fought with method and rationale, but is instead motivated by emotion, and fought with passion.  Right and Wrong have no bearing in an argument so if neither side can actually be right or wrong, that begs the question, what's the point in arguing?