There are more than a few funny things about Americans. All of us like fast food, most of us like peanut butter, and nearly everyone likes at least one drink from Starbucks. According to the beliefs of other countries, our favorite pastimes include watching sports, spending money, and filling up our schedules (as outlined by the American magazine, Forbes) and we order way too many things online. Additionally, according to the Forbes’ magazine article about alien views of us, we complain too much, drive too much, greet people intrusively, hold onto our past like crazy, and order water from restaurants the wrong way. From that article, one can learn yet another thing about Americans. Even when they run out of things to say, the detailed top ten lists in magazines just keep going…

All jokes aside, there are a good number of bad things about us that other nations can’t help but notice. Statistics have it that our recent retractions into division over everything has weakened our social standing and the structure of our country as a whole — not exactly something we want the outsiders to see. The unfortunate fact is that our population is divided on a greater level than just political issues. We argue about everything and, if not to civilly convince people, we aim to brutally dismantle them.

Another critical fact about Americans that is exhibited in everyday life: we are extremely opinionated. About everything. Sports teams, financial battles, politics, yes — but recently our everything-is-custom world has made us even more specific. Coffee drinks, fast food orders, clothing preferences, traffic, education, comfortable workspaces — all somewhat viable things to have opinions on, but we take it to a different level. Of course opinions are meant to be had on the things that are founded in our doctrine, and certainly that affect us. Our flaw is in fabricating opinions about everything under the sun, and, worse, defending even the least important ones like warmongers.

Please don’t take this the wrong way — civil arguments are healthy and free speech is easily the foundation for our country. Uncivil arguments, however, are dangerous. By ‘uncivil’, I am not talking about hurting people physically or even emotionally thwarting them. An uncivil argument is a one-sided argument; unwillingness to see from the other perspective. It is a way of negotiating in which each side presents their case, sometimes in an insulting way, but always in a way that assumes the other side is dumb. 

Instead of trying to convince the other side, they are trying to dismantle them, to tear them apart by explaining why their own views are right instead of respectfully appealing to the other side’s flaws. Sometimes the argument is flipped, and the predator will speak only on the other side’s flaws while avoiding their own side of the argument. Both have equally weak rhetoric. And it isn’t uncommon to see both sides take stances like this. 

It is hard to find an argument on the web today in which both sides are respectfully trying to convince each other, instead of destroying one another piece by piece for nothing but pride.

The main problem with these arguments isn’t that they do damage — more often than not, neither side leaves feeling like they have been picked apart, but misunderstood. Both sides walk away angry if not even more dedicated to their original opinion because of their opponent’s obvious inability to understand what they believe. 

That is the dangerous part of this kind of arguing — it goes nowhere. Instead of civilly speaking about each scenario, of both making an attempt to understand the other side and in the act of doing so either convincing them of flaws or finding flaws in their own argument, both only look at the topic from their own perspective and are unable even to hear what the other one has to say. The goal isn’t to come to the best end on the subject that will benefit the most people, the point is only to win. When disagreements like this are approached, the issue itself cannot be viewed entirely by either side. Both sides purposefully only research from perspectives that support their views, and are closed even to hearing the evidence against them. 

What disturbs me about this issue is that many people who share my beliefs are guilty of this flaw. I have seen a lot of faulty scenarios, some of which have been based even on pro-life arguments. Yes, to my side (which is unwaveringly pro-life), it is obvious that to remove and thereby murder unborn babies at any stage of pregnancy is wrong. Pro-abortion and choice activists complain that the consequences outway the foundational morals, but of course this is ridiculous to us so it is easy to ignore. Many times when pro-life arguments are made, they use good evidence but fail to convince by treating the other side as dumb. While many people on the pro-abortion side defend with very little scientific evidence, treating them that way only makes them more angry — it is not convincing, therefore it is bad rhetoric.

Jesus treated arguments differently. Pharisees, disciples, and the devil himself tried to trap him with their words. He had every right to retaliate but instead he exemplified his full understanding of issues by showing an understanding of their side. Pharisees tried to trap Him by tricking Him into denying Jewish law, asking whether or not they should pay taxes to Caesar. The gospel of Mark records this reply: “‘Why are you trying to trap me? Show me a Roman coin, and I’ll tell you.’ When they handed it to him, he asked, ‘Whose picture and title are stamped on it?’ ‘Caesar’s,’they replied. ‘Well, then,’ Jesus said, ‘give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.’”

Those are the kinds of arguments I want to have. The kind that seeks to convince and not to satisfy cruel longing for victory. The kind that will even accept defeat or correction but is always willing to fight for what is right. Nothing will make opponents close their mind to you like a closed mind — exemplifying our understanding of their side while making our argument is much more convincing. 

The argument should not be “I believe this because it is right, and you are dumb for thinking that.” Instead, it should be something like “I have studied why you believe what you believe. Several pros to this belief explains why you think it is true, but there are also flaws you can’t ignore. I am trying to warn you with my own argument that you are taking the wrong path.” Sure, not all of these arguments are successful — but there is something in Christ-like self-denial that makes one in a few people notice something different. 

If not as good citizens, that should be our goal as Christ followers. He never acted without understanding of the opponent, and in most cases He showed them His understanding before He gave His own reasons. It is always better to test our beliefs before making an argument, and to see both sides before we voice our point. Our aim cannot be to prove ourselves right. Instead we should strive with Jesus’ way of rhetoric —to carefully convince the other side.

©Goodstrong Words May 2022