Why Can't Word Wars Be Civil?

   
     People talk about how Global Warming is heating up the planet. While that may be true, I think a big reason the planet is heating up is because people get so heated in their arguments. They are so passionate about their positions, unwilling to yield. It's all or nothing. Today, everyone is so divided about everything, from politics, social situations, rights, etc. And while it's good to be passionate about topics, letting one's rigid stance on something get in the way of seeing another side, of learning about something, is detrimental to society. We think we live in a very black and white world, a world of good vs evil. You're either right or wrong, and losing is not an option.
     Rebecca Jones discusses how good arguments involve participants who "agree on the primary standpoint" and they are "willing to concede if a point of view is proven wrong" (Jones 158). Most of the time, if we're proven wrong, we get defensive because our oh so large egos are badly bruised by superior intellect.
     Take the argument between CNN's Jim Acosta and Stephen Miller, a White House adviser. The two discuss Trump's immigration and green card policy. Acosta asserts that immigrants won't always be able to speak English coming into the country. Trump's green card policy proposes to give points to those seeking them based on English proficiency, prompting Acosta to ask Miller if they were "just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?" Miller then blasts Acosta for insulting English speakers who have come from other countries.
     The whole ordeal is pretty nasty and unwatchable. Both men made some very questionable statements. Acosta's Great Britain and Australia statement wasn't thought through at all, and is understandably offensive. Miller, on the other hand, wouldn't even defend the policy. Instead, he attacks what Acosta said, rather than getting to the root of the problem.
     Watching the whole video, one will see that they go from arguing about the historical context of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, immigration, racism, and many other topics. After about 3 minutes, I forgot what the true issue was. The above interaction was just one example of the absurdity of their "argument", which is far from Jones's definition of an argument. Jones did say that having the arguers agree on the key issue is of utmost importance. Acosta and Miller wouldn't admit that some of their statements were wrong, offensive, or simply off-topic. They failed to actually solve anything. It was just a few minutes watching 2 men interrupt each other and jumping from topic to topic.
     These men didn't actually solve anything with their childish bickering, and there lies the problem: today, arguments are brutal, and becomes more personal than anything. It's all about boosting egos by proving they are right, instead of actually discussing an important issue that needs to be solved. This prevents all of us from making solutions! Everyone is so caught up in their own political views, and are unwilling to concede. And it's not just politics. All of us are guilty of being obstinate about certain things. In my opinion, college football is the greatest sport on Earth, and I could go on and on about why. People who disagree with me point out how players don't get paid, they are kids getting hurt, blah blah blah. And I know they're right, and I admit to it. I concede to their point, but I also stand by my original stance. Simply put, we agree to disagree. We are all different, and if we were all the same, the world would be perfect, with no problems. But that is not the case. So, rather than compromising our own beliefs, we should keep an open mind and be willing to see the other side.
     This is a silly analogy, but the point I'm trying to get across is that we can still have our opinions, but reshaping them will allow us to see each other's sides and come to solutions easier. It's okay to be wrong!