arguing for argument's sake

I didn't say racist, I said dicey, which maybe means kind of racist in my opinion.  The whole thrust of my argument is different people use the word differently, and I didn't want to be arguing.  The whole point of bringing in the earliest posts was to bring some kind of nostalgia into the conversation, to promote maybe a discussion of what The Institute means to us and get away from arguing, but very well.

Beagle's paragraph seems hopelessly convoluted, so let me try to make it simpler.  It is okay for me, a white democrat, to prefer the company of  democrats of any race to republicans of any race, because we have similar interests, and can have a conversation without getting into those pointless arguments that don't change anybody's minds.  It is dicey for me to not want to associate with black people who are either democrats or republicans because this is similar to the cafeteria where the white people sit at one table and the black people another, or worse, to neighborhoods that are all white or all black.  There is something unhealthy about the races living apart, it's too easy to dislike people who live faraway and eat at another table in the lunchroom. 

Personally I kind of like republicans who are well-behaved, because what is the point of talking to a bunch of people who believe the same things I do?  When I say well-behaved I mean capable of reasoned argument and not calling names and getting angry.  The same of course should apply to democrats, we should be well-behaved when in the company of republicans.  Nothing ruins a party like some partisan of either ilk who just wants to get into a fight.

I was going to say who wants to argue for argument's sake, but then I realized that I kind of like to argue for argument's sake.  There is the point about making one's point, but behind that there is the whole tactical chess-playing side, scoring a point here, blocking your opponent's point there, vanquishing your enemy.  Of course your opponent generally walks away thinking they have vanquished you, so what is the point?  After the initial glow of what I see as my victory that is what I am often thinking, and then looking over my argument I can see where sometimes my tactics may have been, oh less than Queensbury, and I don't feel too good about that,