Arguing Politics
- 3
- Add a Comment
There is one thing I have learned over the past few years and that is that trying to argue politics is a complete waste of time. I know this from experience having debated different people on issues ranging from health care to the war in Iraq to torture and in just about every case the people on the other side of the issue are always convinced that they are right and no amount of information could make them change their minds - of course it was the same way with me. Does this mean that my arguments or their arguments were wrong or misleading? It all depends on what you believe. The reason for the wide gap in beliefs seems to stem from the wide variety of sources people use for information and the lack of faith people put in sources that don’t already agree with their previously held beliefs. An example might be someone that reads the Washington Post and the New York Times on a daily basis and trusts those sources but does not trust information that comes from sources such as Fox news or the Rush Limbaugh show. People that get their information from traditionally conservative news sources tend to have a level of distrust when dealing with the mainstream media because they view it as inherently biased against what they believe. The end result of this distrust of different forms of media is that people believe what they want to believe and no amount of convincing will sway their beliefs - which makes a debate with them on serious political issues pointless because it is like arguing with a brick wall. Perhaps the biggest problem with debating issues with people is that both sides seem to go in with the idea that they are there to win an argument by any means necessary rather than taking a serious issue and looking at all sides of it and trying to come to a final conclusion that represents the truth of the matter. If you take two people and set them up to debate whether the war in Iraq was worth it you would likely end up with a never ending argument with both sides claiming to have the truth on their side rather than having a rational discussion where both sides are given equal weight. In a nutshell, when people argue politics they go in with a closed mind and there is nothing that can be done to open it. Since that is the case, if you find yourself arguing politics with someone, you are only prolonging your suffering by continuing that argument as there will be no real winner.

3 Comments
David B.
March 17th, 2009
at 6:16pm
I have “debated” (if that is what you want to call it) politics with people for about ten years. When I was younger I was much more passionate and bull headed. As I grew older, and realized it is not my job to change minds, I gave it the “discussion” approach instead of the “debate / argue” approach. Now when I find myself talking politics with someone, who holds a different position, I try my best to ask questions as to best understand where they are coming from. This helps form a civil conversation, not a screaming debate.
the oracle
March 18th, 2009
at 3:42am
The problem is that most who use the word argument are speaking about heated language aimed at someone, when in fact, an argument is something delivered in an even tone, consisting of a claim and supporting facts.
It is also necessary to agree on terms, which many times can’t be done, so again, heated words, and no intelligent discourse.
Politics are so difficult because there is such a wide range of belief over many subjects. I am socially very liberal, but fiscally in the middle, and, though it might seem strange since I don’t own a single one, very much to the right about gun ownership.
Because of certain views I have expressed on LG, people who consistently read my stuff think they know how I might react, but I think I have surprised quite a few, simply because it is hard to pin me down within one ‘party’.
I voted for Barack Obama, but had I seen a greater amount of support for Ron Paul, would have probably voted for him. As much as I might be classified a Democrat, I have many Libertarian views, and I think Rep. Paul would have made many good decisions as president.
That actually would have been an amazing thing, because it would have been the very first time I would have voted for a Republican for president (though Paul is really a Libertarian) - not out of some staunch Democrat stand, but because of the very poor candidates that that party has put up in my lifetime.
Buffet
March 19th, 2009
at 12:08am
Very well stated Hackonia. Also very true. Closed mindedness is very difficult to penetrate. Denial, and the abscence of rational thought that accompany it, is even worse.