How to Have an Argument

Posted on August 19, 2025

Most discussions with differing viewpoints turn into competitive "slam dunk contests" where the goal becomes winning rather than learning. But what if we approached disagreements with a fundamentally different philosophy—one based on mutual growth and assuming the best in our opponent?

The underlying goal of any productive disagreement should be mutual growth. Both parties should benefit and learn from the exchange. This may not be overtly stated at first, but it should be the implicit assumption going into any discussion where you have differing points of view.

When this breaks down—when it becomes clear that one or both parties are more interested in being "right" than in learning—the discussion inevitably deteriorates into a slam dunk contest. The focus shifts from understanding to winning, and everyone loses.

Active Listening: Representing Your Opponent's Position

Before any meaningful disagreement can happen, you must first demonstrate that you truly understand your opponent's position. This isn't just courtesy—it's the foundation of productive discourse.

My first goal is to understand my partner's position so thoroughly that they have complete confidence in my grasp of it, and would trust me to articulate it on their behalf.

This is my first goal in any discussion, and any disagreements should happen only after both parties are confident that the other has understood and can represent their position.

This approach shows respect for their intelligence and prevents the common problem of arguing against strawman versions of each other's views.

The Honor-Based Approach

Here's the key shift in mindset: Honor your opponent by assuming they want to grow by having their errors pointed out. This assumption shows respect for their intelligence and growth mindset, rather than treating them as someone who needs to be protected from the truth.

Your car uses the same gas: Apply the Same Standard to Yourself

This philosophy only works if you apply the same standard to yourself. Come into discussions knowing that you have errors in your thinking too. Actively want others to point out where you're wrong.

This creates an environment of intellectual honesty—acknowledging that everyone has blind spots and can benefit from outside perspective. It transforms the dynamic from adversarial to collaborative.

When This Philosophy Breaks Down

Unfortunately, not everyone approaches discussions with this mindset. When it becomes clear that your discussion partner is more interested in winning than learning, or when they take corrections as personal attacks, the productive phase of the conversation has ended.

Attempt to steer the conversation back toward mutual understanding by gently identifying the breakdown. You might explain that you feel your position isn't being understood, that the focus has shifted from learning to winning, or that your comments are being misinterpreted as personal attacks.

Of course, it might in fact be YOU that is misinterpreting their position or YOU who is truly making personal attacks. So take careful stock of your own behavior before pointing fingers.

The goal isn't to eliminate disagreement—it's to make disagreement productive. Some of the most valuable conversations I've had started with fundamental disagreements and ended with both parties understanding the world a little better.