[pattisapu]

Vigorous debate is a good thing.

It's about learning to turn it off afterwards.

Debate at its best is where the issues are at stake -- not the relationship. Getting clear on that is an important communicative and emotional skill.

The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions.

If both sides can put their cards on the table, that's a more productive conversation, rather than one side shutting up and keeping theirs close to the vest.

Confrontation is not an evil to be avoided. Hurting others is the harm to be avoided. Those are two very different things. Sometimes avoiding confrontation hurts oneself and others the very most.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason why one should default to thinking that only others will bring value to the conversation, and that one's own experience and judgment are not as important to share. By sharing one's thoughts, the other side may hear, learn, or rethink something that could change their lives. To the extent that "wanting to lose" consciously or unconsciously results in one bringing less of a certain energy to a debate, that's an opportunity lost for everyone.

Discernment and diplomacy are the valuable skills here. Again, rather than check out (whether smugly or earnestly), instead, let's make efforts to figure out when, where, why, and with whom to turn on the heat, -- and then turn it off.

Sportsmanship among athletes and collegiality among lawyers are good examples of this in practice.

"And do as adversaries do in law,

Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."

--Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew, Act I, sc. 2.

[the_af]

> The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions.

Yes. Plus it can seem condescending. I wouldn't want to debate anything with someone adopting some sort of "philosophical master" stance that "through losing" will achieve enlightening. I prefer the other person gets angry if need be, which at least is honest, rather than trying to play some Socratic bullshit on me.

It comes across as "I'm better than you, let me show you that to lose is actually to win".

[pattisapu]

Good point. People smell condescension, and then check out.

The whole thing cools. They'll say just enough to get to the next topic gracefully. The dispute is patched up with something like "we'll agree to disagree" or something like that, in the interest of polite conversation, rather than square-on debate.

In that scenario one does not receive the full force of an opponent's argument. It never got ventilated. An opponent only brings that energy to a debate between earnest people who see themselves -- not their arguments -- as equals.

[francisofascii]

> The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions.

A better way might be to say, "losing can be good" If you put your best forward, and still lose, then you learned something, and hopefully became stronger. In the same way tennis players always want to play people better than them, because they will get better playing a superior player even when they lose.

[pattisapu]

A good analogy. And that stance is so different from "wanting to lose" -- it is "wanting a challenge." To get bested by a worthy opponent. That feeling can only be had after bringing one's best and strongest game to the court.