I currently teach a great deal about argument (my three sections of English composition are primarily focused on argument, my classrooms are exceptionally contentious). Many of my students think of argument in the expected terms. To them it is necessarily adversarial: it is centered around winning as opposed to solutions, or consensus, or gods forbid the truth. The very language we use to speak about argument couches it in these terms. I am as guilty as anyone else in characterizing argument this way. I catch myself doing it all the time, in class and in conversation. The following is an excellent Ted Talk by Bearded American Daniel Cohen, a Professor of Philosophy at Colby College who points to the problematic nature of the “argument as war” metaphor:

The tremendously bearded Dr. Cohen makes many great points. I’ve seen this lecture play across the internet and the aspect that gets addressed most tends to be the “losing is winning” section that makes note of the cognitive gain a genuine loser in an argument makes. This is a great point, and it reminds us all that the real purpose of argument should not be persuasion (or not just persuasion) but an attempt to present and grapple with the truth of whatever claims are being made. But the other thing I like about Cohen’s discussion, perhaps the aspect I like most, is the way in which he points to the language we use to characterize argument as “deforming.” I continually try to hit home to my students (just as I try and take it into account myself) that the language that we use influences how we think and act in ways that we rarely realize. Cohen concretely points to how the argument as war metaphor prepares us from the beginning to avoid actual problem solving. It governs how we conduct argument. It makes argument into a game that one wins, as opposed to something intended to serve the (T)ruth (“big T” or otherwise). Cohen’s talk reminds us that the metaphors we use matter, and it is important to remember that.