Unity and agreement are overestimated when it is only a matter of creating a unanimous sphere. It becomes desolate and boring. "Challenge" is indeed a pop star among words, only it is the word that is loved, not the thing itself.
Feeling challenged is a really great thing when it takes place in a sporting spirit and you know the rules.
During my long blogging career, one of the nicest things was when my challenger and I were able to keep a touch of wit alongside the hot-blooded engagement, that is, the fight was not grim, but one conceded a point to the other, no ego problems, admitting when another argues better or has the wittier ideas. Such things are truly exciting to experience, as not all in the local and own environment are excellent challengers and I say that I am on the lookout for people who are more intelligent than me.
Greetings, even though you may have similar feathers :)
P.S.
The phrase ‘birds of a feather flock together’ is at least over 470 years old. It was in use as far back as the mid-16th century. William Turner is said to have used a version of this expression in the Rescuing of Romish Fox, from the year 1545:
“Byrdes of on kynde and color flok and flye allwayes together.”
How nice, I thank you for the historical reference.
So well said and I totally agree, debating with people with closed minds and shall I say limited intelligence is not challenge at all
as I have been known to say for some people
having a battle of wits with them is unfair as they are unarmed
but debating with someone of equal or better intellect and even better with a broad knowledge base is worthy of putting ones time and effort into
Hum...hom... so I would disagree with that right away. LOL ;)
if it's me who's a plank in a dialogue, as we say here, and I'm the more intellectually immature of the two, it's probably an immense challenge for the other person to debate with me airhead. Online, that's less the case, I rarely put up a front, but take my time.... or at least the few seconds or minutes between the passing of comments are already a time advantage. Offline is more like it. I can be caught spontaneously and without cover. HaHa! Which is perhaps better anyway, who knows?
In fact, it's probably the biggest challenge of all to talk to someone you think or believe has a limited horizon. Helping them to get the "best out of themselves" would then be a kind of master test for the debater. Without thinking that one is helping the other, but it would have to be a rather selfish act to help someone else. If you know what I mean?
;)
I wrote the earlier reply on my phone in the dark and perhaps did not express myself well
Sometimes I have the habit of responding quickly and thinking after, not a good habit I know
I do agree debating someone with different thoughts is fine and often a challenge, I do not have an issue with that at all, I find it fun, I learnt that from an uncle of mine in my late teens
He lived on a farm and on a Saturday he loved going to two nearby towns to a Pub/Restaurant in each town, one was one very popular with supporters of one of our Political parties, and the other popular with the other party, he would go to the first one which say supports Party A and love debating for Party B and then do the reverse in the other
No angst or heated discussions but open sharing of views and thoughts and he was such a good debater :)
So yes I do get what you mean discussing with someone perhaps bringing to them perspectives they may not have considered, and yes perhaps also having perspectives brought to your attention one may not have considered is a worthwhile adventure
these days sadly in many cases people are so strong on their ideas and can get aggressive if counter thoughts are raised, one has to be careful who one may have an open discussion with
What a great example and then also taken from life. I would have loved to meet your uncle :) thanks for this little insight into his habits.
To debate online, you probably always have to consider something like this as a positive sporting challenge to stay mentally stable. Those who engage in online arguments but feel neither the puff nor the humorous determination to conduct a debate according to unspoken rules (which we all know) can become victims of their own grimness and mistakenly blame the other person.
It is not impossible to counter very aggressive commentators in a way that changes the subject and shows a personal interest in them. Often aggressiveness is an expression of helplessness, but sometimes it is also a deliberate means used by, for example, matured personalities to test their opponent (just two out of many possibilities). Since you never really know, the tension is also the fun of having one. If not, it would probably be better to stay out of debating.
Have you ever succeeded in leading someone you perceive as an aggressor into a genuine conversation? That would be a good and interesting experience, wouldn't it?