In many cultures through ancient history, disagreement was a form of entertainment. One would choose to spend hours in the baths (Roman men), in the wine shops and squares (Greek men), in the gymnasiums and coliseums (various), debating other men both drunk and sober. This was foundational for societies. The deep questions of life, the beginnings of political policy, the fledging ideas of civilization; these were tossed back and forth like so many footballs. And just like a pickup football game, it could get boisterous and heated, possiby even mildly violent, but at the end everyone was friendly again.

We have lost the art of argument.

Especially since the rise of social media, argument and personal attack are sidekicks. To disagree with someone’s philosophy, theology, theory or position is to state they are without worth as a human and only good as a vessel for hatred. Which causes “unfriending” or “unfollowing”. Which creates very small, incestuously insular echo chambers, where you only ever hear those who agree with you, which further degrades the ability to debate.

It’s a sad thing, really.

Yesterday, a friend posted an article on a very contentious issue. Various viewpoints were raised, and disagreements arose, as is inevitable in such cases. What was rather nice is what followed that. For the last 24 hours, there has been an ongoing discussion amongst a generous handful of people who do not necessarily agree on all points, or even on most points. And it has been respectful. Possibly even affectionate. The subject raises strong feelings and strong opinions, but within the group holding the discussion, the absolute worth of the other participants has been upheld. ‘I may not agree with your conclusions, but I respect you as a good-hearted human and I respect your stated position.’

It has been rather lovely.

I dislike conflict intensely. Especially if the person disagreeing with me is an older male with strength in their convictions, my insitinct is to simply agree…even if I think they’re wrong. But knowing that the parties in question will hold the same friendship and affection for me after as they did before gave me the freedom to speak from my own opinion and convictions. And that same respect and affection meant that when an argument was criticized for being ill-thought-out, I don’t feel defensive or offended or need to defend myself.

A lot of really important points were raised on all sides of the issue. And at the end, we have all learned something, we have all had an equal chance to speak, and we are still friends.

This is good and right and healthy, to disagree and still love. To explore other points of view, even if your own point of view remains unchanged at the end. To sift through your own thoughts as you craft your argument and find where perhaps you arent as solid in your convictions as you thought you were.

This is how we grow strong minds and strong people. This whole “your disagreement offends me, so I must attack your personhood and hate you” thing that has sprung up in the last decade is of no profit whatsoever.

Why don’t we try, simply for the sake of argument, sitting with someone we are on the oposite side of an issue with, and just LISTENING to them explain their position. It costs nothing, and there is much to be gained, so long as we hold that space in respect.

Plus, it is fun. And educational.