Arguing: Whats the point? (part 2 of 3)

This time I’m discussing why arguing fails as good communication because it’s easier to begin to argue the person, rather than the topic. This is easily the most frustrating and confusing part of arguing for me. There seem to be a split between the type of person who can argue intensely a topic dear to their heart, and not take it personally, and those who make arguments very personal. Perhaps more accurately, there are times when we are very objective with our position, and other times, perhaps when we know the other person well, when we use our knowledge of the other person, as part of the argument. Ideally, if we were just arguing in order to exchange information, than anything personal would be thrown aside, and no feelings would be hurt. However, as I stated last time, the point of arguing is to understand the other *person*. Therefore a completely impersonal approach is not desirable either. Like most things in life, the line between being too personal, and being too objective is fuzzy. If you are too personal, you might take a breakdown of your argument as a breakdown of your personality. If you are too objective, you might start communicating the idea, but not communicating *to the person* you’re arguing with. A fine distinction semantically, but a large one in reality.