The reaction to Monday night’s game versus Swansea was a case study in how people view football, but not for the obvious reasons.

Losing 1-0 to Swansea at home left Arsenal fans in various states of mind. Despite the scoreline being a constant, its importance to how it reflects Arsenal’s current standing fluctuated wildly, some dismissing it as an outlier in an otherwise excellent spell of form, whilst others confirming it as a regression to the norm of the last few years of inconsistent performances.

I have always said that football is just one long argument that never gets settled, and Monday’s result only helps strengthen my view. But I also thought that arguments amongst fans were the one thing that took away from the enjoyment of watching a game, because I didn’t want something that I love to be used as a reason for others to hate each other.

I wrote in January that Arsenal fans should always respect each other no matter what views any fan may have on how the club is performing or operating. Seeing someone wear an Arsenal jersey should be met with a gesture of knowledgeable acceptance, not a hand gesture. Yet the constant infighting amongst fans made me fear that football was on the brink of losing the one thing that helped it thrive in the first place; a sense of camaraderie with those who support the same club as you.

What happened on Monday was different

Debating football after a loss is never fun, and Monday was no exception in that regard. The difference came in how the result was processed. It shouldn’t be possible that one piece of information can be processed by two groups of people and be confirmed as evidence of two completely contradictory premises. You would imagine that every new piece of information would be carefully processed by both sides and that the argument between them would evolve over time, yet this rarely ever happens.

This has nothing to do with the way people view football. It wasn’t the result that caused everyone to argue about how far Arsenal are away from competing for both the Premier League and Champions League.

To explain what is actually at play here, we have to go on a field trip to Ireland.

If you don’t know already, Ireland is in the middle of one of the most divisive referendum campaigns in its young history as a country. The amendment being proposed is a simple one;

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

In essence, it’s a vote on whether to make gay marriage legal or not.

Ireland would be the first country in the world to pass such a law by way of a popular vote. Now, this column is not going to turn into a diatribe on why I’m going to vote the way I’m going to vote, but it’s suffice to say I know how I’m voting.

As you can imagine, the debates over this proposal have been extremely heated. The ‘Yes‘ campaign believe that any two people should have the legal right to marry. The ‘No‘ campaign believe that the very concept of marriage is predicated on being between a man and a woman and that any changes to that only weakens both the concept of marriage and family.

Obviously, these aren’t compatible opinions,

But what’s been illustrative in this campaign hasn’t been the arguments themselves, but what people were arguing about. There are some incredibly important ethical debates to be had here, such as whether a child should have the right to both a mother and a father, does a religious arrangement like marriage need to be replicated legally, and others. For a country that is incredibly conservative, these are not trivial matters.

The focus is on none of these. Instead, all the general public gets from the media are instant reactions to what has happened over the last few hours between campaigners from both sides, usually over petty incidents such as signs being taken off lampposts or people announcing that they’re voting for one side over the other. More time is given to explaining why the other side is wrong instead of actually discussing the issue at hand.

That’s why pretty much all debates on TV or radio are pointless, because the two people talking will be people who have already made their mind up about the issue that they’re supposed to be ‘debating‘. What ends up happening is that both sides try to validate themselves instead of their opinion, leaving us with a meaningless, five-minute long point-scoring exercise.

It’s because of coverage like this, society is becoming more and more conditioned to treating every latest development being crucial, because as soon as something happens, there’s an argument about it somewhere, whether it be on TV, radio, Facebook, Twitter, or wherever you go to catch up on the news. It’s this constant bombardment of debates and opinions that create a sense that every minute event is important to the overall state of society, and needs to be treated accordingly.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Whether a bloke in a council estate tears down a campaign sign or not has nothing to do with whether a gay couple’s marriage should have the same legal status as a heterosexual couple’s marriage. A celebrity declaring for or against the proposal has nothing to with whether a child’s rights under the constitution are affected or not. Not everything that happens, matters.

What has this got to do with losing at home to Swansea?

It was just one game. Whether you think it was a blip in form or a return to old ways, you can’t use one result as proof that you’re right. The time to argue about whether Arsenal are heading in the right direction or not is when we have all the facts in front of us, not the time when a fact that helps corroborate your own opinion occurs.

We’ll be more than able to understand fully where Arsenal lies once the season is over. We’re having the right argument about whether this team is good enough, we’re just having it at the wrong time.