Many of us at Harvard pride ourselves on our willingness to hear both sides of an argument and to remain open-minded to new ideas no matter how much they may diverge from our own. And we expect others to do the same.

Why is it then that so many debates end in bitterness? Read any editorial page of campus publications and you're bound to find a comment like "author X has no idea what she is talking about" or "person y's point is simply ridiculous."

Statements such as these seldom address the arguments being put forth. They are insulting, and they do nothing to further a reasonable discussion.

The result of many of these comments is alienation and antagonism. Most of us have been there. Reducio ad absurdum; unnecessary roughness in the heat of argument; insults exchanged for no reason. It happens all the time.

We are of course all free to discuss and argue as we please and as our ends may require--as it should be. But if we're really concerned with openminded dialogue, then we might attempt to actively avoid certain forms of argumentation which are simply counterproductive. The following is a provocative dramatization; any similarities to the argumentation techniques of actual people, living or dead, is completely intentional:

Speaker 1: "Public education is one of the most ridiculous institutions known to man. For its inefficiency, its inconsistency with liberty and its lack of positive effects on the nation, public schooling must be abolished."

Speaker 2: (This person, who disagrees strongly with Speaker 1, has several options. Among the most likely and prominent: character assassination, a combination of character assassination and argument assault or pure argument assault.)

Speaker 2: (Employing character assassination) "Speaker 1 is a conservative pig who does not know the first thing about education or liberty and values." (Speaker 2 might then proceed as if no point were ever made.)

Are there any problems here? First of all, Speaker 2 has just labelled Speaker 1 a "conservative." The problem with this is--unless Speaker 2 knows this for a fact-he or she might be wrong, thus producing alienation and serving no greater good in advancing a point. The politics are not the issue, only the argument. Why even assume Speaker 1 completely believes the point he or she just made? That is not even certain. Why not just deal with the merits of the point in its own right or with its greater implications?

Speaker 2: (Character assassination and argument assault) "Speaker 1 is a conservative pig. We need public schools to educate our children. An educated populace is tantamount to national strength and success."

Much better. The issue of the value of public education has been addressed, but why the insult. The argument speaks for itself; does it need to be preceded by a punch?

Speaker 2: (Employing pure argument assault) "Public schools serve a valid purpose which is educating children to be good American citizens."

What a refreshing and all too rare response! Point well made; information added; no deliberate alienation. Why can't more discussions develop in this manner?

The moral is that differences in opinion and beliefs are a fact of life, especially in a diverse community like this one. Disputes are always going to occur, but this does not mean we cannot strive to minimize the bitterness.

We can make points and counter-points based on reason; we can attack arguments by pointing out their fundamental fallacies, if they exist, or merely point out their greater ramifications. And when we get mad or frustrated, we can disengage or pull back, rather than personally attack our opponents.

But insults and accusations usually do not really advance one's position. Instead, such hostility alienates friends and foes alike. So Why not pass up the opportunity to offend? We'll conserve a great deal of energy and avoid weakening our own positions.