The Conflict Agreement
We’ve collectively lost the art of debate. Not the shouting-match, meme-war, “own-the-libs” or “boomer redneck” kind of debate—that’s alive and well, and a thriving business model. But real debate? The kind rooted in rhetoric, critical thinking, and intellectual humility? That’s practically extinct.
So instead of engaging with people who think differently, we avoid conflict altogether. Harmful ideas, conspiracy theories, illusions, and delusions are allowed to fester. Each side retreats into echo chambers, surround themselves with like-minded voices, and creating idiot bubbles where their beliefs never get challenged. This doesn’t make us smarter or more informed. It makes us fragile—unable to handle opposing views without spiraling into defensiveness or rage.
We now live in a world where counter-intuitive bullshitting is valorized, where the pose of argument is more important than the actual pursuit of truth, where clever answers take precedence over profound questions.”― Ta-Nahisi Coates
Enter the Conflict Agreement. This isn’t about winning arguments. It’s about making sure the conversation is actually worth having. Before diving into any heated debate—whether with a MAGA family member, a naive leftist friend, or anyone in between—start here. If the other person can’t agree to these terms, don’t bother. Save your breath and your mental health.
The Conflict Agreement
Before we begin, let’s agree to the Namaste. Clause: we agree to be kind, be respectful, and don’t raise our voices. Civility isn’t weakness—it’s emotional discipline. So, namaste: the humanity in me recognizes the humanity in you, even if we think each other’s views are stupid.
The core of this agreement is to three fundamental questions. Without them, we’re just monkeys throwing shit at each other. With them, we have a shot at real dialogue.
1. Can You Fact-Check Yourself?
Can you question your own assumptions, even if it’s uncomfortable? Can you verify information without cherry-picking sources that just confirm what you already believe? Can you admit when a fact contradicts your position without twisting it to fit your narrative?
2. Can You Hold Two Opposing Views at the Same Time?
Can you sit with contradictions without rushing to pick a side? Can you explore opposing ideas without feeling threatened? Can you accept that both perspectives might hold some truth?
3. Can You Accept That You Might Be Wrong?
Can you recognize that your beliefs are shaped by biases, experiences, and limited information? Can you admit when new evidence proves you wrong without feeling like it’s a personal failure? Can you value growth over being “right,” even if it challenges your identity or worldview?
Now, three Clauses:
The Apologist Clause: Unless either of us someone’s paid PR representative, let’s agree to not try explain what they “really meant” or “actually intended.” Let their words and actions speak for themselves.
The Projection Clause: You don’t know my intentions. I don’t know yours. And we sure as hell don’t know someone else’s. So let’s stop pretending we do. Stick to what we can actually talk about: specific behaviors, policies, and actions—not imagined motives or psychic guesses.
The “Fuck It” Clause: If at any point in this conversation either of us stops honoring these principles—getting defensive, refusing to listen, or just throwing intellectual shit—we can hit the “Fuck It” button. No hard feelings. No dramatic exits. Just:
“Fuck it, this isn’t going anywhere.”
And we walk away.