Is discussion escalation inevitable?

I was fascinated by my discovery of Godwin's Law in this months' Dr Dobb's Journal (a programmers journal with some philosophical insights, I just mention this to prove that programmer's don't have to be nerds ).

Godwin's law is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

The point behind this law seems to be that people have a tendency to let their discussions escalate beyond repair, when they are more focussed on winning the discussion than on keeping the discussion 'honest'.

But, one might ask, what's the point of a discussion without an outcome? And doesn't that suppose there's a winning idea? And therefore a winner i.e. the person who brought up and/or defended the winning idea?

Damien,

I've always felt the purpose of a discussion is to express my point of view, and, hopefully, provide something that the other party can consider, either now or at some future date.

That is why, when it's clear that the other party isn't listening, or expresses an opinion completely irreconcilable with my own, I don't bother to reply any more.

Courtesy of the failed back-up my reply went missing...

But in a slightly more coherent form (perhaps) what I said was that people write for 4 main reasons, to inform, to persuade, to inquire and to explain.

I suspect broadly speaking the same is true of discussions. Sure if I am trying to persuade you that, for example, Ba'hai is the true road to saving your soul (which is not a very Ba'hai thing to do I know) then I can have success or failure. If I am trying to persuade you to buy 4 cans of paint rather than 2 I could have partial success - you buy 3 cans.

But if my goal is to learn something, to see how others think, (and perhaps contribute a few bons mots of my own) then I have different criteria for success, and ones that don't require escalation of the debate.

If my goal is to facilitate discussion (like last week's early thinkers) then success is measured by lack of long pauses, and perhaps, as occured, some explanation or an inquiry for further information enters the picture in a different way to if I am participating in the discussion.

But some of it is still about ego I guess. I enjoy talking and thinking on a wide range of topics. But there are some I could not be a facilitator for, because I do feel strongly and have something I want to say. Don't know how Jinny does it to be honest, but respect to her for doing it. But even then there is no requirement on my part that everyone leaves believing in the rightness of my cause. My ego doesn't work that way most of the time.

I love to discuss shit, and the only group of people with whom I will "discuss to win" - ie, argue - are what is known as "unfriendly" athiests.

Atheists are broadly split into three categories. Not my categories, that of an athiest in a reader I'm readin'. Anyway. There are "friendly" atheists. They think it possible that theists have completely rational reasons for being a theist. The unfriendly atheist thinks this impossible-- if I am a theist then by definition my reasoning is irrational or else I wouldn't have ended up a theist. The third categroy is "indifferent".

The "friendly" type may well believe my reasoning to be erroneous but not irrational. The "unfriendly" type aint having any of it. So when it comes to unfriendly types, my goal becomes completely undermining that paradigm.

I am a rational theist and love to try and prove it. I don't think I can be blamed for that, heh.

But on every other topic I discuss for the sake of discussion, to air my views, hear others, and learn where possible.