The "Economics" of Argument

So people shouldn't debate because they will be embarrassed if they meet the person they have been debating with face to face? Uh uh. I stand by every single thing I have ever said, and I would stand by it to anyone's face too. There is no awkwardness or embarrassment in me.

I also have differences of opinion with people IRL. That's how life is.

There was a preacher who once said in a sermon-
"If you don't like me it doesn't matter to me. I didn't come here to see you anyway-I came to see Jesus. But if we all see Jesus we will all get together in the end"!
Seems to apply whether online or IRL.

At no point in this post do I hope to imply that either might makes right or that war = peace, however I have some thoughts that if not considered carefully might be construed in that fashion.

Growing up I learned something, not every argument is worth making, I learned to "choose my fights". How did that happen? As an example, if I didn't like the way a neighbor kid looked at me I might start a grudge with him, being 7 year olds we might start an argument over something trivial such as which of our mutual friends would play where. What did the grudge cost us? The loss of friendship, hard feelings, a bloody lip? Yes, the argument had a value in what was lost or in what was actually destroyed.

I learned that while some points were worth making to my parents that not all of them were. If I stuck to my "guns" on some issues it would just get me in trouble, a well thought out point might instead get a concession. So, I learned to balance the risk and reward of "arguing" with my parents. Always fighting about everything, whether on the playground or from the backseat of the car was virtually a sure fired way of losing. Of missing out on the good times, of assigning myself to misery.

I learned on the playground that angry impasse was a thing to be avoided, that getting punched or giving punches (something I was relatively good at) usually meant either an ice pack or a trip to the principles office, so i got a life lesson in the economics of argument. I was considering today how the internet (in most forums) takes much of the economics out of argument. We arrive here and no point is too small to debate, no point can be conceded, and angry impasse can be extended into perpetuity with no resolution. I would say that the internet teaches us that there are no underlying economics in argument, that there is no need to to deter belligerence since the social cost seems so small.

Woe to us who takes that "lesson" into "real life". Belligerence IRL ALWAYS HAS A COST. It costs us relationships, marriages, money, job opportunities, even violence, and on and on. I would humbly suggest that we carefully consider what it costs us, to realize that it does cost, that it robs us of our joy. I want to remember to count the cost, not every fight is worth having, not every grudge is worth bearing and some points are imminently conceedable. While I like to debate, more than anything (believe it or not) my friends know that I'm all about fellowship. I do care about people and I'm always praying for God to help me see those people that I disagree with the most through His eyes. I've often learned that those people are the ones I can learn the most from, if not in agreement, then in civil disagreement.

You are always going to lose a lot by arguing so there are not any economics to it. And the stuff you lose can't be gotten back real easy or quick either. It is not worth anything

In my opinion that is not true. If something is true and is very important isn't that worth arguing for? Jesus argued with the Pharisees, Paul argued with Judaizers, Elijah argued with the prophets of Baal, Moses argued with Pharaoh. God is going to have an "argument" with sinners. Not arguing can have a price too.