Win an argument; lose a relationship.

It's becoming very common in quarrels with people to attempt to win by declaring "that's how I am like, and you just got to accept it." I have been pondering over the significance of the statement and its implications on the relationship between the two (or more) individuals in conflict.

Most of us would have been brought up in an environment where we are taught to learn to forgive and forget, and by extension to that principal, to be more open and accepting of people's views and actions. These two principles seem to stem from the same idea of acceptance of 'what is', and to not create tension between what we want and what we get. This extension inevitably leads to us having to 'accept a person for who he/she is' - of course, only on condition that you are interested in a relationship with the other party (and by relationship, I mean any interpersonal interactions, be it between lovers, friends, siblings, family, etc.)

It now seems to me that forcing this idea upon others in an argument is nothing more than abusing something that was borne of kindness and harmlessness. Saying 'this is who I am' does not necessarily mean that your actions are right, and even if they were, no one is obliged to accept it all - we usually only do it out of goodwill.

It would, on deeper inspection, seem stupid to try to accuse someone of non-acceptance in an attempt to put down an argument just because you are unable to defend your own actions. Such acts can only be described as nothing more than a pathetic attempt at self-defence of something that is not at all worth defending. The stronger you try to assert such demands, the more unreasonable and demanding you look, until a point where there is no longer a reason to even show any goodwill. I believe we call that the end of the relationship, where both parties see no point in trying to interact any further.

The statement comes across to many as a very convenient argument to defend themselves, and to attempt to justify their actions. However, doing so does nothing to prove your rightness. What happens is that we are attempting to wrong someone by pointing out a non-acceptance, and therefore, nullifying any arguments. And it should now be obvious that even if you tried to force someone to accept your behaviour, you have not proven your actions to be correct or reasonable. Such declarations do nothing constructive, except to further irate an already agitated party in conflict with you.

What happens next? Reasonable logic would hold that if you cannot accept someone, then there is no point in interacting with that person. We would then expect something along the lines of 'Okay, since this is what you are, forget it, I cannot accept it'. End of story.

It is quite sad that some friendships can end simply because of unnecessary statements that are said in desperation to win in arguments. The basic rule in an argument is that you don't have to always win. Arguments are just another form of communication, albeit a little more emotional (and sometimes, violent). The same principals and objectives of communications apply: You just need to get your point across, not to bulldoze through and eliminate everything that stands in your way toward victory. Experience would tell you that such victories are mostly Pyrrhic, leaving only a trail of destruction that you would only realize when you finally look back at your past actions.