Lisa Tokoro Posted 11 months ago Daniel H. Cohen: For argument’s sake Cohen's idea that learning=losing simply amazed me. It is seemingly obvious, but it is hard to acknowledge. At first, Cohen's syllogism of "getting better at arguing means you lose more, which is good" was hard to understand because it was such a new idea, and because the word "argue" often contains a negative connotation to it. However, I couldn't agree more to "learning=losing." It is hard to learn by yourself, because we all learn from others and our interaction with others within our society. Learning is an essential part of society moving forward, or perhaps even backwards at times. Arguing, is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of social interaction geared for learning. If "war" is metaphorical of this argumentation, then it is not surprising that events such as murder, war, poverty, and recession takes place in certain parts of the world, as some "win" over others while some "lose". I believe this is inevitable, because this is the paradigm we live in in which we all socially interact and connect with each other through arguing. A great knowledge issue is involved in the construction of arguments, as everyone comes from different backgrounds and perceives things differently, but that is part of the nature of arguing and is essentially what makes an argument an argument. In regards to Cohen's question, "how can arguing be positive?", I think that depending on the definition of "positive", I think there can be indeed positive arguments. If good arguing means more losing, and ultimately results in more learning, as long as that learning is positive, wouldn't that argument be positive as well? Listening to Cohen making an argument about arguing was fascinating. This is especially because we tend to look past this important fundamental aspect of "arguing" in our behaviors. It is truly intriguing to think about the possibilities of the new kinds of arguers there may be in the future, or even some that may be already existing today.