The best ideas always come at the intersection of differing points of view.
Arguing or debating something doesn’t mean that the discussion is uncivil. Two believable people, armed with the same facts, can genuinely arrive at different conclusions depending on their value system, their risk appetite, their synthesis of the “unknown” elements of the equation, and more. And if there has to be one decision, then they will argue or debate. But during that process, they will also learn a lot, if they engage appropriately, about how the other thinks even if they don’t agree.
Now that is different from unbelievable people trying to argue out of ignorance or arrogance instead of asking lots of questions before even forming an opinion. They should not be arguing or debating because they should have no position yet that they are trying to put forth or defend – they don’t know enough.
Unfortunately, many people now think the word “argue” always implies conflict. That’s a misunderstanding (and oftentimes misuse) of the word. Debate used to be a very organized, logical, civil means of expressing and exploring alternative points of views – now people use it as an opportunity for character assassination as a means of a avoiding exposing that there is no reasoned thinking behind a point of view. The best ideas always come at the intersection of differing points of view.
