Like them or not, arguments are where ideas and facts are forged and refined, like a sword on the anvil or a peach cobbler in someone's mouth. There will always be arguments for everything. There is no single factor in existence that has a completely unanimous agreement to it. Even a simple question about the colors of the sky can vary greatly from person to person from time to time. It is important to understand the nature of why.

Truth is a difficult thing to define. In a practical sense, we like to think of it as an unarguable, logical fact. An absolute that is indisputable. One must remember that mass ignorance can easily become a believed fact, just because a majority supports a train of thought does not necessarily mean that it's ultimately the most efficient methodology from an objectionable point of view.

If you trace back the roots of human intelligence and culture, it really is not much more than a makeshift foundation that people have built vast structures of ideas and concepts on. Nobody really knew that audio language was the way to go from day one or that the wheel would be an important invention, or that the counting system should be based on tens for every digit. It all happened out of constant trial and error that occurred from screwing up enough times, and the system is still flawed. If you pull out the bottom brick the whole thing comes crashing down.

So here is the bottom brick:

What the heck is our "Measuring Stick"!?

This is the part of society, that we do not like to talk about, because doing so is a great way to get yourself ridiculed, hated, condemned and killed by society. Religion, politics, sex, ethnic, aesthetics and desires are all units on this measuring stick, and when you say that your measuring stick is more accurate than someone else's, you are challenging their very identity, and they will do almost anything to defend it, sometimes, even ignoring their own system of measuring in order to oppose yours.

A more understandable explanation of the "Measuring Stick" is that it is our moral compass that determines what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, what is good and evil, and if we like to put Miracle Whip on our Wonder Bread. The scary thing about why I refer to this innate system as a "Measuring System" is that from a scientific point of view, anything that cannot be measured does not exist. That is why until the day people discover the meaning of life and all that fun crap, we have to settle for a make shift Moral Measuring Stick that changes from person to person.

In history, people measured distances by feet, however, unlike the regulated system now, the length of a foot was often determined by who the current ruler was, and in even older times, it varied from person to person. This system was eventually standardized, but our morals are an abstract concept, they don't exist in a physical manifestation that we can whip out a ruler with and evaluate. There simply is no other reference point to coordinate with morals, accept that there are things that we like, and that there are things that we don't like, and that is what makes up a person's identity.

The basic rule is, "truth" in effect, is anything that is commonly believed. The bigger the spread and the more people that believe it, the stronger it is. Throughout life though, everyone develops a different "measuring stick" that they use as a reference to compare every additional piece of information they receive in life. These measuring sticks are as unique to each individual as DNA and fingerprints, and they change with time and experience. These measuring sticks can consist of an infinite amount of variables, anything from religion to genetics can influence them. Not only do they take into account the accepted truths that an individual interprets in their life, but also the means to convey them and utilize them. For this reason, two people might have almost exactly the same opinion, but different means of expressing them or prioritizing the points, which often leads to nitpicky, bloated arguments.

Arguments can be a metaphor for a lot of things. It can be compared to war, because you must defend, you must attack, you must counter attack, you must ambush and the goal is to ultimately shut the enemy up as fast as you can. It can be compared to sewing, because you have to be fluent, consistent, and most importantly, all of your points must connect, or else your argument will fall apart. My favorite comparison to a hard boiled argument is a game of Poker.

Poker is a perfect comparison to an argument. All the cards are laid out on the table, and at the beginning, of the game, your points are hidden, save your basic standing. If a person believes that the cards that they have in hand are strong and have potential of winning the game, they will seldom replace them with cards that their opponent recommends them to pick up, that's just common sense. In arguments, everybody has a a deck of priorities that they emphasize and try to use to strengthen each additional point in hopes of a winning hand. Any newly accepted ideas thrown in by the opposition are usually acknowledge, but are put at the bottom of the list of priorities, only to be used in the case of coming up with a killer counter point Unlike Poker, though, you can pick what cards you start with and can evaluate your chances of winning from before you even draw your first card. There is no substitute for research and solid proof, none, but strategy can significantly increase your chances of winning. Like card counters though, knowing where the argument can possibly go from each question and response you give is key, and knowing your chances of winning is perhaps the most important factor of all.

Like Poker, the secret to being good at arguments, is to fold as soon as you know that your prospects for winning are low, and raise when your chances are high. Often, attitude plays the role of the bet. When you lose, you want to lose casually, summarize your failure in one sentence. However, when you know that you can win, you want to intimidate your opponent with a flood of points and reasoning that they can't keep up with, then finish them off with a sure kill argument, then change the subject or retreat from the argument before they have a chance to retaliate. If you are really ferocious, you can attack something else they feel strongly about, and that'll give them a nervous breakdown or two. It might not be nice, but if you are going to kick someone when they are down in the first place, you better make sure that they never get up. You can always throw in personal insults and reverse the burning spotlight off of you by mentioning flaws in your opponent's fashion sense and sexual orientation, but these are desperation tactics, and should only be used in the scenario that losing the argument will result in substantially worst consequences than winning. Not every argument is a structured debate, and sometimes you'll have more than just facts stacked against you. Being a persistent and unyielding is great for arguments where losing has significant consequences, but always weigh what you can potentially gain to what you can ultimately lose then act accordingly. Knowing when to give up can save you some sleepless nights and some potential enemies, and it is a strategy, not a sign of failure.

There is a point in an argument between very stubborn people when both sides have run out of cards and know exactly what each other has. At this point, the argument can go two ways, nowhere, or in flames. These are the people who aren't worth arguing with. If arguments were a game that people play at a casino, these are the chickens that bet one dollar on each hand, never raise and don't know how to play the game properly. They are not worth your breath. A person who cannot loose an argument is a person who does not know how to argue. These are the same immature people who just wouldn't die when you were playing Cowboys and Indians as a kid, no matter how many times you shot them. Being invincible in an argument doesn't make you a winner, it makes you an asshole.

Remember that knowing how to argue is important, but like all of the phantoms of society, arguments only work if it's a mutually accepting exchange of ideas, otherwise, you are better off starting the exchange of opinions with your best left hook, because not every enemy you make will fight only with words.