not in the "i'm a super genius" way (i'm smart, but not that far out of the ordinary run)- but in the "i like to debate everything under the sun (because to me, it's fun), and i generally am unwilling to concede any arguement that has an illogical or irrational basis".

First, let me say (and i know i'll take crap for this from other posters) - i disagree with you, and it sounds like he might feel the same. Your opinion is NOT as valid when based on irrationality. your opinons aren't valid just by virtue of the fact that you *have* them- otherwise one could could say anything, even a lie, and call it "valid". you have to justify them.

so, my fiancee and i had the same problem. he would be angry at me for the exact same reasons as you mentioned, practically even worded the same way. and maybe it was callous but i replied basically as you said- "it's not that i think you're *wrong*, but what you've said so far hasn't convinced me that you're right, so articulate it better if you want to change my mind because i am open."

What it came down to inthe end was me having to concede that he doesn't feel quite the same as me about debating things- i can get heated and attack and take attacks, and then turn it off like a switch when we're done, but he feels more personally attacked by me and it's harder to let go of. i had to acknowledge that this is a personality difference between us and that i needed to lay off sometimes- that no everyone thinks it's fun all the time. he had to acknowledge that this is who i am. it's the mentality that underpins all my values- and i will never just "let him win" an arguement for the sake of him winning if i do not agree.

I am not an emotional idiot as prudie seems to think. I'm just a person who is unwilling to commit her life to someone who wants me to fake my beliefs or agreement to make them happy.

and by that same turn, lest you think i'm a hypocrite, i'm always clear that i'd rather hear his arguement, whther i think it's valid or not, than have him passively accept what I say.

Rational people should only marry other rational people. Then we can speciate and form our own civilization where presidential debates consist of more than just a game of "who knows the most grieving mothers of dead soldiers" oneupmanship.

jms81:

not in the "i'm a super genius" way (i'm smart, but not that far out of the ordinary run)- but in the "i like to debate everything under the sun (because to me, it's fun), and i generally am unwilling to concede any arguement that has an illogical or irrational basis".

First, let me say (and i know i'll take crap for this from other posters) - i disagree with you, and it sounds like he might feel the same. Your opinion is NOT as valid when based on irrationality. your opinons aren't valid just by virtue of the fact that you *have* them- otherwise one could could say anything, even a lie, and call it "valid". you have to justify them.

Wow. I thought Prudie read an obnoxious amount into the letter. Now I can see her point. Um, I like to argue, too, but sometimes you have to pick your battles if you want to get along. Also, I realize it's probably a gen y kinda thing, I"m not that old, really, but I can't quite stand to read intellectual discourse that looks like a text message. I'm sure you're very smart, honey, and we all take you very seriously. Now run along and find the shift key.

That said, yeah, I was disgusted by the political debate last night. Did anyone hear an issue? Was there any logical, utilitarian discussion anywhere? Me, I guess I was too absorbed in taking care of my child who suffers from some undifferentiated emotional problems, inventing complications that might need a partial-birth-abortion and fixing a toilet. Afterwards, we all sat around the kitchen table and talked about how we're ever going to be able to send the kids to college if Obama dosen't socialize healthcare.

and a tranny? I'm confused.

Wow. The first Dick-ette here who actually brags on it.

There is nothing wrong with being right. Nor is there anything wrong with wanting to point out why you believe something is X when another person says it's Z. And I agree that debating minutae can be both fun and mentally stimulating.

However, I grew up around this kind of environment, but my husband didn't. The kids and I can go for hours over soemthing are silly as what color the sky is. It drives him nuts.

So you have to ask yourself, what matters? Is it okay that he says the sky is blue, when you think it apears azure, but know deep down that it's really black and only the atmosphere is causing it to appear to have color? Or is it more important to agree to disagree on some matters and to live in harmony?

If you can find someone who enjoys this same kind of (truly mindless) banter, more power to both of you. But as a couple, don't expect to get invited to many social functions (think "Data" making small talk) unless you both can learn to tone it down in public.

Coming from the other side of a relationship like this (I'm like the letter writer), I think what she means by "valid" is not the same definition as you use. Of course, if someone argues that 2+2=5 and has very strong feelings about this, that doesn't make the statement valid. However, I think what the LW was referring to was the need for her boyfriend to recognize that her views are worth something because they are her views. Even if he doesn't agree with her, even if she's downright wrong according to the laws of logic, he still has to love her and respect her.

If their and your relationship is anything like mine, the "argumentative" one will try to apply their debate tactics to discussions where there is no right answer, only two different opinions. When you're discussing something that has no right answer, both sides need to show respect for one another's viewpoint. Arguing matters of opinion in the same way as you would argue a matter of fact can come across as dismissive of the other person's feelings and give off the impression that you don't respect them. Within a relationship, this can become a very serious problem.

Oh come on, the debate was fun. We decided to start taking shots every time joe was mentioned....

That looks nothing like a text message.

not im a uber genus way lolz im smrt not 2 smrt i like 2 argue lots lolz

or we can go this route and really make you cry

|\|07 1|\| 734 ...oh geez, I can't even force myself to finish it.

"So you have to ask yourself, what matters? Is it okay that he says the sky is blue, when you think it apears azure, but know deep down that it's really black and only the atmosphere is causing it to appear to have color? Or is it more important to agree to disagree on some matters and to live in harmony?"

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment (pick your battles), I'm not sure I'd really want someone I love to believe and/or repeat something most people know to be false. I can just see her telling him "Well, Mr. Genius, so-and-so told me that this was untrue, but you agreed with me (so she can WIN), so you don't know everything" - and there's a whole other argument.

For the love of god, of course this is what i get. Thank you for proving my point by being patronizing and completely off-topic. Please, explain to me how, other than capitalization, my message in any way resembles a text message. If anything, it resembles someone who's used to word and outlook auto-correcting for her. Please also explain to me why it matters.

The point of my post isn't whether or not I'm smart. The point is that Prudie's disapproval of someone who (HORROR!) asks for logic is completely dismissive. Demanding rationality doesn't make you an emotional idiot. and whether or not *you* choose to let arguments drop or lie to your significant other to keep the peace, some of us out there think that there's a way to disagree with out being personal or emotional. it's called "using facts".

I'm simply pointing out to the letter writer what this feels like from the other side, and what it might take for her to evaulate if this is something she wants to work through or not.

jms81, I think that Prudie may have been referring to discussions about opinion. Like, do you prefer orange or red? You can't ask for a logical answer about someon's opinion. Well, I mean, you can. But it's silly. And worse, if the asker wants to argue with the askee about said askee's answer, that's, well, prickish. I think that's the kind of thing Prudie was getting at. Let's say you ask me and I say "red." And you go, "well, why? I mean, I prefer orange as it reminds me of oranges." I might say, "well, because I just like red." I have no logic for it. I just like it! Neener-neener (see, my opinion is even childish, and certainly not logical, but it is mine! Plus, I prefer green, actually.).

And I think that's what the LW was asking. No knock on you! Just sayin'.

SmagBoy1:

jms81, I think that Prudie may have been referring to discussions about opinion. Like, do you prefer orange or red? You can't ask for a logical answer about someon's opinion. Well, I mean, you can. But it's silly. And worse, if the asker wants to argue with the askee about said askee's answer, that's, well, prickish. I think that's the kind of thing Prudie was getting at. Let's say you ask me and I say "red." And you go, "well, why? I mean, I prefer orange as it reminds me of oranges." I might say, "well, because I just like red." I have no logic for it. I just like it! Neener-neener (see, my opinion is even childish, and certainly not logical, but it is mine! Plus, I prefer green, actually.).

And I think that's what the LW was asking. No knock on you! Just sayin'.

In the case of preferences, i'll fully concede the point. Likes and dislikes are different than debates about positions on issues or couple-y decisions.

jms81, you've shown yourself a little slow on a key aspect of debate - knowing the opposing point. It is how "his argumentative style and calculating rationale are applied to our relationship" and she is is a unique and infallible position to know how her position. If he doesn't respect her when she says he does not understand what she is trying to say, or how she feels about whatever aspect of their relationship is on the table, he's an ass and is being utterly illogical.
Facts are really handy.

The problem in the letter is when it's applied to relationship issues, not issues of fact or preference. This changes things from reason to feeling. If the gf is saying "this makes me upset" and the bf says, "it's illogical to feel upset," that's a problem, even if the bf is right. You can't logic away someone's feelings, even if they agree that they are being unreasonable. Sometimes feelings are valid even when they are irrational. Having to constantly justify why you are upset to your partner is a drag. A partner should realize that sometimes being supportive instead of being right isn't "letting them win," it's "being supportive." If the partner can't do that, then it is a lack of empathy that can only find a mate in someone who is similarly unempathetic.

spackle:

The problem in the letter is when it's applied to relationship issues, not issues of fact or preference.

His arguments could even be quite logical, and it still be a matter of opinion.

For example: Let's say they are discussing where to eat out that night. She states she wants Chinese. He points out that the Italian restaurant is less expensive, closer, less crowded, easier parking, better service. He points out that she gets a headache after dinner every time they eat Chinese food. Her response - fully emotional but equally valid - could be, "So what? I'm hungry for Chineses food."

The only argument (besides the headache) which could totally defeat that would be something along the lines of his being tired of Chinese food, and hungry for Italian. Or they could compromise, and eat somewhere else entirely.