So I got into a fight on the Internet today.
Not really a fight, I guess. A spirited debate, we’ll say. It occurred in the comments of this blog post by Craig Calcaterra, about Nyjer Morgan starting a bench-clearing incident in the 9th inning of last night’s Brewers/Cardinals game.
In the course of the debate, I learned something about myself: I enjoy debates a lot more when I’m not 100% convinced that I am right.
For some background, let’s watch the video of the incident:
In this particular debate, a commenter made the point that Albert Pujols was just as much to blame for the incident as Nyjer Morgan was. And that is where I probably should have ignored it, because I knew with 100% certainty that he was wrong. Whether Pujols was right or wrong to react the way he did, there’s no way he can shoulder just as much blame as Morgan. Which meant if I argued with the other guy, I would know with 100% certainty that I was right. Which would (and did) lead to me being obnoxious about it.
Did I win the debate? Of course I did. The other guy was wrong. I was right. In the end, he resorted to deliberately misrepresenting what I had said.
But did I enjoy winning the debate? Nope, I never do. In my mind, the only debates worth having are the ones without a winner or a loser, just two people who understand the other side a little bit more. It’s why I hate discussions about politics and religion, because inevitably all participants are convinced of their correctness. And I hate to say it, but baseball discussions are often a lot more like politics and religion than you’d think.