The birth of conflict

Learning how to argue can prove beneficial in various situations. Conflict, being inevitable, can turn to sorrow or even tragedy if not faced fully and competently. This essay will attempt to distinguish between two fundamental types of argumentation, their utility and shortcoming. For starters, why do people engage in any short of argumentation? Usually its due to some conflict of interest and long-term accumulation of resentment. Therefore, the unwillingness to openly discuss about one’s personal condition and needs is usually at the forefront of conflict. Being transparent about oneself can be a vulnerable and frightening experience. Afterall, when people let their walls downs, the probabilities of being assaulted or criticized increase substantially. The alternative to a reasoned and transparent discussion is heated, spontaneous manifestations of neurotic aggression. This forces both sides to pick up their arms and try to verbally exhaust or defeat the person they are interacting with. Most arguments end in one sided rhetorical beatdowns(usually by the person who can tolerate the most stress in a given interaction) or mutual frustration.

Assertive Vs equilibrated argumentation

There are two fundamental types of argumentation: assertive and equilibrated. The former utilizes maximal rhetorical force for purposes of domination and demoralization. It is usually applied by less empathic, more narcissistic personality types. Their fundamental orientation is towards victory and control over people and social interactions. The latter focus in careful consideration of their conversationalist’s perspective and fundamental line of argument. It is a strategy for long-term stability and the establishment of genuine, intelligent relationships. This approach requires the ability to listen, even when that becomes increasingly more difficult under the weight of previously failed attempts at reconciliation.

Assertive argumentation:

Advantages

The strengths of assertive argumentation are as follows: individuals who prefer a more dominant approach to social conflict are often perceived as more intelligent, more powerful and are less likely to be messed with. This can be a particularly useful strategy against predators and parasitical psychopaths. Personal attacks and well placed witty remarks are the weapons of assertive argumentors, the trick is to provoke the other person to the point were they misuse their words or say something that makes them appear as too volatile or overreactive. This can be an unbelievably effective method in increasing status and social prestige(when performed skillfully and subtly).

Disadvantages

The obvious drawbacks are the danger of social isolation. Dominance has an attractive component, but it will also increase the probability of becoming an outcast and to be viewed with unsympathetic skepticism. Furthermore, this strategy can be absolutely destructive when applied to intimate relationships. There is no benefit in asserting verbal superiority over one’s partner, under any conditions.

Regarding negotiation within relationships, here is a very elaborate guide on how to engage in meaningful dialogue:

Equilibrated argumentation:

Advantages 

The clear advantage of the equilibrated approach is the creation of reciprocal social bonds. When in conflict, equilibrated argumentation aims at reconciliation through listening and constructive dialogue. Listening implies the capacity to adopt the other persons concerns or problems as one’s own. To listen without judgment, refraining from the impulsive urge to criticize or attack the other person’s point of reference, is one of the most effective ways of navigating an unsettled social dispute and transforming a crisis into an opportunity for improved collaboration. That is especially beneficial in friendships and intimate relationships, were active communication is key in sustaining and expanding established bonds.

Disadvantages

The disadvantage lies in the fact that people who attempt to pay the devil its due end up paying far more than it was worth. Namely, the propensity to find an equilibrium opens up opportunities for exploitation by less agreeable, vulture-type personalities. This can be especially harmful when one is in an irredeemably corrupt environment, where sharp teeth are required for self-conservation.

Selecting the appropriate argumentation strategy

The strategies laid above can be used as hats that one uses from time to time according to the peculiarities of their circumstances. What i would suggest is the following: it is reasonable to be reciprocal and affectionate with those who need and deserve it, but its also necessary to develop thick skin and a capacity for tempered malevolence for putting the uncontrollably disagreeable to their place. Therefore, a synthesis of those two methods of argumentation has to be created and integrated into the personality of the reader. Peace and prosperity are not solely dependent on reconciliation or aggression but the person who knows how to walk the line between extremes.

Here is a stellar example of one of the best conversationalists alive: