I love to debate and argue. I’ve always been curious about how people arrive at certain conclusions and how they go about clarifying and defending those conclusions. Arguing with a good friend is one of my favorite things to do! Not only do I enjoy being open and honest with my opinions, I also end up learning more about myself and others through the process.

To me, a good argument is where both parties involved leave feeling slightly changed. There are different kinds of arguments too. There are silly arguments like who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman and there are serious arguments about topics like abortion, health care, or the existence of God. I like all these types of arguments. I really believe it’s one of the best ways for people to learn and grow.

The hard part is that there are a lot of characters out there who just are not that great at having an argument. I don’t know what it is, but some people get so hotheaded during an argument that they sort of lose sight of what’s actually going on. I think one of the most unfortunate habits that people exhibit when a conversation starts to get heated is an instinct to turn a discussion into, what I call, a Fact Fight. They start rattling off facts that they’ve heard or memorized hoping to impress, intimidate, or distract their “opponent”. There is something about this way of arguing that is equal parts troubling and hilarious. If I’m talking to someone that has somehow suddenly flipped into Fact Fight mode I can’t help but picture myself talking to an unnatural animatronic thing. It feels like I’m talking to one of those creepy singing Chucky Cheese robots. I hear words and see a mouth moving, but its just recited soulless bullet points.

What I’m talking about is when you get in the middle of an interesting discussion and someone throws out a fact and just stares at you like that settles it. I’m not talking about someone who wants to bring an important fact to the table so that it can be considered and analyzed. Facts are incredibly crucial to any discussion. An argument without facts would be sloppy. However, facts are a means to and end. The end, rather than a simple nodding of the head at facts, should be a fresh perspective about the nuances of the topic at hand. Facts move a conversation along and give it life and grounding, but certain people don’t treat facts like that; there are people that treat facts like grenades or poison. They use facts to sabotage a discussion, which inhibits new perspectives and stifles growth in a relationship. I honestly can’t really think of anything good that could possibly come from the Fact Fight Strategy.

Let’s say you and I are having an argument about who makes/ sells the best coffee (one of the sillier breeds of argument) and you begin to conspicuously display signs that you’re flipping into Fact Fight mode. You would start to say things like, “it’s obvious Starbucks is the best because they sell the most coffee. The profits prove it. End of discussion.” Or you might say, “Starbucks adds two new stores daily, which proves that they’re growing and that people love their coffee. There’s nothing else to discuss.” At this point I would be thinking, “how unfortunate that it’s come to this.” First of all, if we could access the patience and creativity necessary to move forward with a discussion we’re going to learn a lot about each other and our drink preferences. More importantly, there are some interesting things to consider that might even teach us something about some broader topics. Is it even possible, with our limited exposure, to declare a best coffee? How are subjective factors like our personal taste and objective factors like coffee sales going to play into our final decision? What characteristics define a good cup of coffee and why? Who’s to say!? Most importantly though is this very subtle, almost indistinguishable element: are we arguing to show who is right or are we arguing to co-discover a new truth?

            The German Philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer calls this co-discovery the Fusion of Horizons and I have found this to be a tremendously helpful term to keep in the back of my mind when I begin to engage in a discussion. The idea is that each individual has a horizon of comprehension and understanding based on their particular cultural and historical location. “Horizon” is a refreshingly generous term to apply to our fellow humans because it implies that they are not allowing their opinions and understanding of facts to be stunted by their inevitably limited exposure to the world.

My wife, Marisa, and I usually try to engage in arguments with a Fusion of Horizons mentality and it makes our relationship pretty thrilling. We both learn a lot from each other and we rarely feel like we’re fighting despite our discussions being quite heated. Just last week we had an intense discussion about private school verses public school for our kids. I grew up going to public school and Marisa grew up going to private, and just like any other human out there we think our own personal journey is usually the most valid. There is so much bias and blindness that people bring to interactions like this because it feels nearly impossible to see the potential superior elements of someone else’s experience. However, during this discussion both Marisa and I worked hard to truly listen and understand each other. We’ve spent time on this topic before, but for some reason this time was a huge step forward for us. And it wasn’t a step forward because we agreed or somebody “won” the discussion, but because we both had a deeper understanding of the topic and each other. Another really great benefit of the discussion is that we felt closer.

I find it interesting that The Fusion of Horizons concept turns the typical argument or debate on its head. What we might typically call the “winner” in a discussion is actually the person who “loses” because they were so busy pounding the table and trying to get their point across that they missed out on an opportunity to learn something new. The “winner” is the person that listened and didn’t get caught up in a fact fight. They absorbed information and they were attentive to their fellow human and their own emotions, which expands their Horizons of how they understand the world. Of course, nobody needs to feel obligated to expand their horizons. People can go ahead and remain in their safe cul-de-sac of dogmatism and certainty for as long as they want.

I started a blog 2 years ago and I only wrote three entries mostly because I don’t think I knew why I was blogging. Furthermore, many blogs I read seem to have an arrogant or combative tone, which is a real buzz-kill for me.  I’m calling my blog “A Fusion of Horizons” starting now because when and if I ever write something I want it to be with this goal in mind. No Fact Fights.