Arguments are an integral part of our everyday life. Even if we don’t get into arguments every day, the results of them shape the society around us.
Arguments are great, but whether you’re debating Jordan vs. Lebron, J. Cole vs. Kendrick or Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam, it’s guaranteed that there will be that one person asking for the argument to stop because both options are great. Your least favorite friend will argue that the comparison only serves to degrade one side as opposed to appreciating both for their greatness.
Those people are annoying, and in a perfect world, the rest of us normal people would cast them off to an island where they can sit around telling each other how everything is great. Their island would quickly fall apart, however, because they’d have no laws due to the lack of anyone with enough conviction to write them.
Most normal people understand that arguments aren’t an attack on one entity in comparison to another, but rather an interesting mode of conversation that ultimately says more about the values of the proponent of an argument than the quality of the subjects.
Fence-sitters need to realize that they are not defending the honor of a great king from the opposing army of verbal attacks, they’re just being irritating. The subjects of these arguments often don’t care when their merits are debated on national talk shows, so it’s doubtful they mind a few people at a bar comparing them to someone else.
If anything, comparisons to the other greats in a particular field are a credit to excellence. Nobody compares Jordan to Ronnie Turiaf, J. Cole to Vanilla Ice or Nirvana to Hanson. Mediocrity is rarely discussed because it is mundane. Ronnie Turiaf was a serviceable role player, there’s not much to say about him; Vanilla Ice and Hanson were one-hit wonders with the artistic depth of a kiddie pool. 
Aside from being a useful tool for categorization, arguments are fun to take part in.
From debates on morality taking place in lecture halls to conversations on a street corner about if pineapples are good on pizza, arguments are an engaging thought experiment—a battle of wits that can introduce new modes of thinking and sharpen the minds of all parties involved.
To rob oneself of the thrill of a particularly good argument by citing the validity of all opinions is a cop-out. The purveyors of this idea are usually seeking to avoid the argument because of a lack of knowledge on the subject or an aversion to verbal disputes. Anyone with either of these afflictions could be quiet and look at their phone or leave the room instead of attempting to squash everyone else’s fun. 
I doubt this article will have the power to stop this cohort of the indecisive from chiming in with baby’s first observation anytime soon. We’ll just have to keep ignoring them for now until we can make that island a reality.
Frank Kidd is a 21-year-old mass communication junior from Springfield.