A is for ADR

As mentioned previously it has fast become clear that I'm unable to keep up with the current affairs commentary style of blawg so I have decided to steal a nice idea from Barmaid – BVC and all that. Which, in fairness is a pretty standard blogging thing anyway so I wont feel the guilt but will thank her all the same.

My A is for and Apathetic Apologist-Advocates: Ace in the Art of Ardent Augmentation.

And with that stream of Arbitrary Alliteration out of the way I’ll venture to explain. I overheard two males on the tube the other day debating the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although I’m now quite tired of the debate in general this was a fascinating example of powerful Argumentation. The point being that neither side in such a debate is absolutely correct and neither is absolutely wrong so the debate hinges around small victories and clever use of debating skills. Neither male knew that much. The Argument fast became about winning and losing; and no longer sought to calify, justify or expose viewpoints. Fact became irrelevant and were challenged with no saving evidence. Now lost in an academic debate, which the two were not prepared for, the point of the argument became hazy. The parameters had not been defined and soon the only thing each party knew they were fighting for was a specific side. The original purpose was lost. Now one party had to defend the Zionists, while the other pleaded for the Palestinians. And so a pride war emerged, a dangerous pride war over an issue that a history of diplomats have not even been able to resolve. Never had such an incendiary matter been placed between these two young gents. Voices were raised, emotions stretched: neither seemed bothered about the political issues any more. There own social politics were taking hold of their reasonable arguments turning them into sensational assertions of right and wrong. Pride was at stake. Intellectual pride: not only of their convictions but of a whole divided humanity leaving humility totally forgotten.

Soon things became clear. They had set out seeking a resolution. Now they found that to compromise would be to admit weakness; and inevitably lose. Therefore no resolution could be reached. This was an Argument, not a debate, but could it ever have been Amicable? If both parties Altruistically followed a few simple rules they would have solved their personal Arab-Israeli crisis.

I’m fortunate enough to be well informed on ADR, but I have no experience in it and would be fearful of trying to resolve a dispute which is brought down to this level. Am I equipped for angry, proud, vehement, semantic arguing, truth twisting, fact challenging, perspective ignoring debaters? Maybe. A true Altruist-Advocate realizes that dispute resolution has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong, pride is irrelevant. You’re victory is in resolution, you’re pride is in saving everyone’s face not just your own. To turn a horrific battle on its head with reasoned logic or even Aggressive Argumentation may seem like a success – but to win over the stubborn opposor with fair compromise is where the real victory lies. But this all falls down to a painful cliché: that it is easier said than done.