to argue.. properly = Fellowship

Today's Argument Format:

A: Presents Conclusion
B: Counter-Conclusion
A: Conclusion
B: C-Conclusion
...
A & B: Deadlock
---

e.g
A: Yes!
B: No!
A: Yes!
B: No!
...
A & B: Yes... and No?

We notice that this method produces a lack of efficiency and eventually is unproductive. To achieve greater social cohesion, this is something that one may consider to use before saying anything, then regretting you ever said it. And maybe slap oneself while one's at it.

---
Proposed Argument Format:
A: Conclusion
B: Counter-Conclusion
A: Premise A
B: Premise B
A: Premise A'
B: Premise B'
A: Premise A"
B: Premise B"
A: Conclusion
B: Counter-Conclusion
A & B: Compromised/Mutual Conclusion
---

NB Premise A and B, A' and B', A" and B" have to complement each other. ie, arguing over a common ground.


This brings me to a point that has always crossed my mind. The very basis, I feel, of a successful argument (by successful, I don't mean that there necessarily has to be a 'winner', for if you look at it, there is no winner, only a bragger.) is a common subject to argue upon. For example, there is no way an argument over toilet paper is going to be based on pattern for one, and hamsters for the other. If you do not feel that you are able to bring your point across from one aspect, you either a) attack from another flank, or b) back off.

I think the point of an argument is really to have a compromise, more than an induction of faith. Therefore, one should only do so while trying to get an agreement out of it. I know that this is pretty much like having a shirt that fits all, or at least try to. So how are we to accommodate the headstrong and tractable? dense and.. not so dense? Here's a proposal: We don't do anything! As they are, they make the world as eclectic as it is. Without them, we would just be drones. Without them, there would be no leader-follower relationships, just comrade-comrade relationships. There would be no politics, no religion, no competition, not a scent of bloodshed for that matter. Basically, a FELLOWSHIP. But as we all know, this is not really possible on a larger political scale (see Eastern Bloc, USSR and CCP. Notice also that their structure was much like the fellowship style, with a single leader(s)). We need the balance. Therefore, we leave them as they are. They go on to be leaders. To be people of vision, and character, or lack of. So go on, create a ruckus and maybe don't embarass yourself too much!

But for the regular unambitious blokes (ie peasants), the aforementioned format may just suit you just nicely. :P

I'm not a professional argument... guy, but I am kinda well-built in the common sense area if I do say so myself and it really puzzles a person as worthless as myself as to how it isn't obvious enough. heh.



if you didn't get what i just said above, just remember, "happy happy joy joy" isn't getting us very far unless we do something about it. :)

cheers.