In a society where different beliefs and practises shine almost everywhere, being open-minded is an utterly important personality trait. The converse, being narrow-minded isolates different people to themselves and deprives them of essential experience.

Can you imagine considering yourself correct all the time without having ever considered the other side of the argument? You would continue to fail in understanding the actions of others based on your own interpretations. It is necessary to note that people look through different angles. Although you maybe looking towards the north, another person maybe looking towards the south; there is nothing anybody can do to turn someone around forcibly to another direction - even if it does, it is as if though their eyes are fixed at north…while their hearts are fixated at south.

“Arguments” should technically not be happening. Another issue thus arises, can the words “argument” and “open-minded” ever reconcile? What comes to mind when hearing “argument” is something that clearly involves two or more opnions, as well as two or more parties. All are intending to make their opinion foremost and prove it to be the most correct and most applicable. Can they be open minded with each other? Or will that lead to a formal discussion?

For example, person A believes in God and person B refuses to do so. There is a hot argument between them and soon narrow-mindedness settles in. Now, they are not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, rather they are trying to prove themselves correct. There is a massive difference between the two.  The former could, in essence, stem from a form open-mindedness. The latter has transgressed the borders of the original intention and now is entering the realm of an intellectual battle, where the goal is to either get the other party facing one’s own direction or to completely disregard the other opinion in arrogance.

Naturally, it could be argued, that with the extra spice known as open- mindedness, an argument can evolve into a cooler and friendlier discussion. Through these discussions, one gains a dire amount of experience. Sometimes, one carries a totally baseless doubt on one person because of third party sources or what their eyes have displayed to them. It is as if though, one has judged a rice field due to spotting a defect on one rice plant. The truth is, the defect may not be a defect or maybe totally unnecessary compared to the context of the situation.

In terms of belief, one may not actually see it clearly, what can be seen though is the fruits of a particular belief system - namely certain maintained actions. The nature of these actions may not be understood in the sense that the “why” behind them is misunderstood. One needs to approach people of weird actions with an open mind. They need to ask questions to nullify or verify their doubts. The other side needs to do this as well. Also, one needs to have a zeal for truth - not just an intention to dominate their opinion.

Such arguments will probably be more formal and closer to discussion. One can learn to accept different beliefs from them and find commonalities instead - a tool that can enable social cohesion. Quite evidently, when a society fails to unite, they may never progress.

Contemplating a society where different people of different beliefs only interact to argue fiercely, gives a picture of an unwanted atmosphere. Therefore, one should comprehend the intentions of arguing and also consider the opinion - alongside the smooth search for similarities.