But those who try to reach agreement often fail precisely because they neglected that first necessary step of a good, healthy argument.
Consensus isn't reached merely because those of good will decide they must together discover a solution to some problem. People bring different agendas to the table -- different perceptions and perspectives, different expectations, different values and different goals. And -- believe it or not -- different opinions.
There are reasons to argue besides winning the point and trying to prove one's moral or intellectual superiority.
A good debate participated in by people with passionately held differences of opinion can help clarify the issues and focus attention on areas of agreement and disagreement. It can help us determine which disputes are weak (based on a simple misunderstanding of verifiable facts) or strong (based on firmly held principles or values). It can narrow the options for us, help us reduce complicated decisions to less-complicated (if never easy) decisions, help us move from a myriad of confusing choices to a few clear choices. It can help move us forward by showing us what we know that we can build upon.
There are at least a couple of times, of course, when it is absolutely pointless to argue. One of these is when we are confronted with things about which there can be no dispute -- the so-called self-evident truths that need no proof: The whole is always greater than its parts; nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time. The other is at the opposite end of the spectrum from this absolute certainty, when differences of opinion are based on mere taste -- what clothes one wears, or the food of choice, or which kind of music is "best."
Yet how much energy is wasted on arguments at these two extremes.
Recall all the college dormitory debates about whether there is or is not such a thing as objective reality or whether a tree falling with no one around would really make a sound. Can we really "know" the sun will come up tomorrow? Millions of hours have been spent on that very "disagreement."
And consider all the positively supid arguments you've ever had about the "right" hair style or the "proper" way to decorate a house or the "best" career to pursue or city to live in or friends to have. Personal choices can't be explained and shouldn't have to be defended.
Perhaps because we waste so much intellectual energy at these two extremes of absolute certainty and mere choice, we seem to have little inclination or expertise to argue in the middle areas of opinion. Yet it is in this broad middle ground where most of us live our real lives and have to make the difficult decisions that determine what kind of society we have and what kind of civilization we leave our children: Is abortion right or wrong? Where do we draw the line between freedom and equality? How do we achieve justice? When is war justified? What do we do about poverty in a capitalistic society?
And it is on precisely this kind of difficult decision that argument is the most fruitful. Most of us are less than certain of our opinions. We can be persuaded by the facts, moved by indisputable logic, changed by the strong statement of a firmly-held belief. We can agree to disagree, then begin to reach real consensus. We are open to potentials.
The function of an editorial page is to identify the areas in legitimate dispute and to lead an intelligent conversation in pursuit of the truth about those disputes.
Those of us who put out the editorial pages can do only part of the job: stating what we most strongly believe and putting forth the facts, principles and logic we think can support those beliefs.
A debate involves two parties. In order for us to move forward -- for little truths to lead to Ultimate Truth -- all of us have to be participating in the same conversation, accepting the same definitions, observing the same rules.
It is to that end, dear reader, that this publication is dedicated.
