I never did seem to understand why so many people believe that winning an argument is based on arguing the distension rather than the discussion. If your feelings are imploding based on the context and interactivity of the discussion, then it's blatant enough to understand who is stagnating and who is sensible... If your feelings are hurt, or your body is convulging from the obscene level of force, then this doesn't mean that what caused it is a falsification -- in fact, it's quite the opposite. Thinking being offended equates to being the victim is very counter-intuitive. Anyone that spends more time arguing their lack of position in an argument is clearly losing upon their engagement. Nobody -- nobody -- that actually understands the heart of the discussion will ever argue about the difficulty between one and the other, as to imply that its hopeless between them and the other; they would address it formally and intellectually. The whole "you hurt my feelings", is essentially "truth hurts" -- if it wasn't "true", in the slightest degree, it would have NO EFFECT, however it does because there's a correlation between what hurts you, and yourself. Therefore, arguing is not about "rationalizing" -- it's about "reasoning" -- something only few people in this world have gained the intellectual privilege to take responsibility in. The rest are simply children, or children in "matured bodies" that want to believe they have things figured out; the moment they based their argument upon absence rather than presence, is the moment their misconstructivity defines them more than constructivity. If you have gone so far beyond the "balance" state of being, and it comes to the point that everything that isn't you, defines you, it's verily certain that you're a black hole that should have no influence or inspiration on anybody, if you can't even influence or inspire yourself, hence why you're always arguing people to reassure yourself and fill in your holes again, just like sex and greed.