A few debates and discussions on this board have touched on the purpose or "point" of conversing with other participants here. I think it might be important to sit back and consider what each of us might expect from discussing our viewpoints here.

For instance, I see discussion as a process, an exchange of ideas and beliefs. This includes challenging others to explain themselves, both to clarify information as well as point out other ideas and evidence. The participants might come to an agreement, or may find a steady division between their respective views.

This, of course, does not always play out smoothly. Yet, I have to admit that I have been surprised at some of the frustration of some people here during discussions. I am not surprised that people may be adamant about their beliefs and stubborn about holding them---I expect that. Instead, I am confused why some people seem so upset when OTHERS are adamant or stubborn about their own views. I do not intend to pick out any person here, and I'm sure I may be guilty in some respects, but on a few occasions some people have accused others, in no uncertain terms, of ignoring varying viewpoints and even questioned their aptitudes and abilities in historical discussion. The irony is that much of this criticism seems to demonstrate the same stubbornness. It says, "You can't accept my viewpoint, therefore something is wrong with you."

I have a problem with this approach, because it gives up on the discourse. It portrays disagreement, challenges, and questions as wrong or bad.

There will always be disagreements, for with two people come, to some degree, two different views. Disagreement is not bad. On the contrary, it is necessary to develop learn something new. The real question comes down to handling that disagreement...and that comes down to one's idea of the purpose and "point" of discussion and debate.

Historians and, I hope, people serious about history turn to evidence and analysis to settle disputes (or at least try to settle disputes). They will critique the information and the other person's argument to learn more about the topic and make a conclusion. The goal is not so much making the other person concede or completely agree, but to both learn and help flush out a better understanding for all parties. This can be accomplished even while discussing someone you totally disagree with.

This process is not always easy, as often the information can be viewed in many different ways and sometimes people can be less than accomodating when their views are challenged.

But, how SHOULD people sincerely interested in history respond?

Should we complain that they are blind or accuse them of being "know it alls"? I don't believe that does any good, for even if we believe the person is being unreasonably stubborn, it is a declaration of one's own sense of superiority over the other.

Should we give up when someone we are discussing with does not seem to understand or appreciate the depth of our arguments? Perhaps, if we really think that the conversation is going no where. At what point can we decide that? After two, three, five, or maybe ten posts? And then, is it not best to just end the debate with a summary of your position?

Again, it comes back to the purpose of discussion. I have seen some conversations run their course and people agree to disagree. But I have, unfortunately, seen many discussions here and elsewhere diverge or come to a screeching halt when someone became impatient and complained that another, essentially, did not agree with them.

I want people to disagree, and challenge others' arguments and viewpoints. I want people to look at a post and say, "That doesn't make sense," or "You are forgetting something," or "What about this?".

But, I realize that others here may not even share this view about the purpose of discussion. Some people may not want discussions to be so pointed; they may be looking to "convert" others; and they may want to keep conversations short and declarative without much development.

So, I ask what people here think the "point" of discussing viewpoints is.