I disagree. If all that's involved is a disagreement, that's almost always resolved by a discussion, as you allude to later. If someone is spoiling for a fight, the disagreement is merely a pretext, though the person wanting to fight will refuse to acknowledge that. In this case, you can refuse, as your friend did, to have the fight, or win, or lose. In a relationship, though, not having some mix of winning and losing fights, assuming that they happen frequently, will usually have deleterious effects on the relationship, and refusing to participate will eventually be seen as loss.
If someone close is spoiling for a fight using a pretext, I believe there must be some reason that person wants to fight, other than pure spontaneous hate. The fight is an opportunity to find out what this reason is, and if something can be done about it.
Disagreement is not exactly the right word for what I meant. It's too specific and makes it sound like a matter of opinion. Often it's not clear why animosity sparks up, it might be some feeling that you only discover by expressing it in a fight. Let's use the word 'problem' instead.
The fight I started with that friend could have been a discussion, but became a fight because I found it too hard to keep my self-control. As a result we made some of the mistakes Crichton describes. Still, it was an attempt at solving a problem. It was not a disagreement about facts or opinions, the problem was that I felt insulted by some of his behavior. What I wanted was either that he showed some kind of regret, or that he explained why I was wrong to feel insulted. I would have considered both of these outcomes a win. I'm not sure what you mean by losing a fight.
For most people, "explained why I was wrong to feel insulted" could go either way. If the friend explained that he hadn't meant to offend, then it might be that the upset would go away. This is a win for the relationship, but as the argument just evaporates, there's no win or loss for either party (unless you can manage to feel like a winner anyway, I guess). If he pointed out that you'd totally blown this out of proportion, and if you'd only paid attention / thought about it / cared enough, then you'd not have felt insulted, then this could easily seem like a loss for you, and a win for him.
In my (sadly, ended) marriage, it seemed rare that an argument we had was really about what the words were about, though I often didn't know until later what the argument had really been started by. Arguments seemed pretty rare, though, and only at the end did I find out that she thought we'd argued all the time, and that I never budged or was willing to lose an argument. Had I known we were having these arguments (which seemed like discussions to me), I could have easily arranged to lose enough of them to keep the balance -- it wasn't that I wanted to win; I just didn't understand she was losing. Hence my statement about either winning or losing arguments too much putting strain on a relationship. All this stuff seems clearer from a distance, to me. :/
You are right there is an emotional bonus when the anger feels justified, and you are right to be skeptical when I say that in a fight one of the things I'm going for is to feel stupid for being upset. I'm probably harder to convince I'm wrong when I'm angry, but still I know it's then that I need it most. The best outcome is when the problem simply disappears because I realize it was only in my head. I'm not saying I'm capable of pulling this off everytime I should. In the fight I mentioned, my friend was actually pointing out that I blew the thing out of proportion, and didn't bother convincing me about the details.
I understand now that what you mean by losing a fight is admitting you were wrong. This is indeed embarassing, but it's also your victory over yourself.
Your idea of arranging to lose a fight sounds dangerous. I once did that with a coworker. I admitted I was wrong just to end an argument. When the coworker later found out I didn't really believe I had been wrong, there was no longer enough trust to solve the problem in a discussion.
I don't think arranging to lose a fight is dangerous for all types of relationships. I think a personal relationship is less likely to be damaged by that than a working relationship, since in a personal relationship, deliberately losing a fight is (or can be seen as) a sacrifice you're making for your friend or SO.
*"Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt"
If it was just a friend, it may no longer matter, being similar enough to you.
Anything more involved (the $SUBJ of the article) implies that everything else is secondary, and nothing else matters: it could very well be, that causing pain and grudges is the last thing the "friend" would have wanted -- in any shape or form: be it fight or discussion (or rather dispute).
Actually, the article mentions this, when putting off the fight/discussion for a time, when "on the spot" discussions would be too heated. This will bring you right back to "If one feels disadvantaged at the end, both have lost, since the same fight will probably have to be fought again." Or discussed, as you prefer.
A strategy he does not mention is refusing the fight by not listening, or going for a walk, and later pretend that nothing happened. A friend did this to me recently. It may even be justified, because I was mad at him for things that no longer matter.
Still, I think the problem could have been solved faster and with less grudges by a discussion on the spot. I prefer to call it a discussion. If you avoid broken furniture, insulting generalizations, off the topic accusations, threats, and all the mistakes Crichton points to, you can hardly call it a fight.