In a recent TED-Talk (TEDx ColbyCollege, Feb. 2013, Daniel H. Cohen: For argument’s sake, see embedded video below) the philosopher Daniel H. Cohen asks an interesting question: How do we approach arguments?

I’m not talking here about arguments about ordinary tasks, like who is taking out the trash or other mundane things, but about intellectual, academic and stimulating arguments. That is, arguments that require thinking, domain knowledge and intellectual wits. Although he probably thought of it as mostly applying to philosophical arguments and debates (he is a philosopher after all), I believe the ramifications of his observations are much broader than just the domain of philosophy.

He states, in my personal experience correctly, that we tend to approach any argument as a battle or war (the so called dialectical model). A war, we absolutely have to win. The winner takes all the glory, while the loser suffers the ultimate defeat and loses his face and his honor. Or so it seems…

Altogether he mentions three different models of arguments:

1. The adversarial (dialectical) model: argument is war.
2. Arguments as proofs: mostly used in mathematics, when the arguer explains and proves his claims. This is a valid argument, however, if the mathematical reasoning is sound, there is no adversarial arguing.
3. Arguments as performances: i.e. a politician in front of an audience trying to convince the audience of his point of view. Cohen argues, that this is particularly true if you have to convince e.g juries, where you have to prepare a tailored argument for the particular audience.

However, the war-model of arguments is the most prominent one; and this adversarial model shapes how we think about arguments:

1. We emphasize tactics over the substance: i.e. we learn how to spot inconsistencies and logical fallacies, to win the argument instead of actually thinking about the substance.
2.  It creates a chasm between our point of view and our opponents point of view.
3.  There is only one winner and one loser.

But is that really true? Is the winner really the winner and the loser really the loser?

Let’s take a look at it as a neutral bystander: What has happened after the argument has been settled? Assuming the argument stayed on a factual level, that is, no logical fallacies spotted, not straw men, no ad hominem attacks etc., then, on a abstract level, we can state, for example, the following observations between proponent A and opponent B on the proposition P:

1. A has convinced B of proposition P.
2. A has won the argument.
3. B has lost the argument.

On a cognitive level however, things look slightly differently:

1. A has convinced B of proposition P.
2. A has used his arguments successfully and cognitively remains the same.
3. B has been convinced by A’s arguments and has gained a new level of understanding.

Thus, A stays the same, whereas B has improved his cognitive level.
So, although A has won the argument, he has not progressed a single bit and profited from the argument, apart from the short term and transient ego-boost of actually winning it. On the other hand B, using and expending all his counter-arguments to try to defeat proposition P has lost the argument. Yet, B has cognitively made the most gains. He has learned a new proposition to be if not true, then at least acceptable. B has cognitively gained, he has grown. He is the real winner of the argument.
Thus, on your next argument, consider the possibility of accepting to lose the argument. It is a much worthier and rewarding achievement than the short term ego-boost you would get from winning the argument. You change and improve. You grow. Your opponent does not.

On a side note: arguments do not have to be divided into winners and losers. This, in my opinion, is the lowest level of arguments anyway. Two other results of arguments are much more worthwhile to pursue and achieve:

1. Compromise: in many intellectual arguments, there is no clear-cut winner or loser. Accept that; accept your opponents point of view and see if you can try to reach a compromise, something in between the opposing points of view. The worst possible compromise, obviously, is to agree to disagree. But there are many intermediate levels, where you can meet your opponent. I personally don’t like the term opponent, however, since it is such a war-like term and description, which forces you into the war-paradigm of winner and loser, i.e. somebody you must win over. I rather prefer the term teacher or mirror, because like that, it forces you to think of your opponent as someone who shows you another point of view. What about going into an argument with the mindset: “Hey, that’s interesting. You seem to have a different point of view. I believe you are a smart and capable individual, thus, if you have an opposing point of view, you must have compelling reasons for it. Please, tell me and explain me. Let me try to understand your point of view. I believe, I will learn quite a lot by expanding my understanding to include your point of view.”
2. Synergy: This is the higher form of a compromise in that both proponent and opponent come to understand that neither of their points of view are entirely correct and either can learn from the other. Thus, creating a new, shared point of view, which is closer to the fundamental truth of the proposition P. I believe this to be the highest possible outcome of an argument. Both A and B have cognitively profited from the argument and quite possibly the understanding of proposition P has deepened for both parties.

To sum up: Next time you go into an intellectual, academic argument, understand that if you lose it, you are the real winner. If you find a compromise or better yet synergy both you and your opponent will have profited. A win-win situation, indeed. This will advance the cognitive level of both opponents.