Argument VS Debate

Argument VS Debate [+ favourites]

I really cannot understand why people, or how people can retain any satisfaction from needlessly arguing with people.

Don't they have a little voice in their heads that prompt them to stop and smell the roses when the other person makes a valid point?

I find that I seek to find the valour in every statement I hear without judgement, and then pass judgement on it. That way I am more intelligent since I have learnt something new.

Some people just go about nit picking little things in your argument that are somewhat "arguable" and as a result you end up wasting your time discussing pointless facts with them.

As a person seeking the "truth" in all matters, I feel like pulling my hair out because it's such a pointless excercise. Also, since I like enlightening people with my experiences, it goes against my basic nature.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I am inside my own head a lot (as I am sure many of us at this site are) so when I need a quiet moment I travel out and converse with other people. The problem can then become that the conversation is not deep enough, fast enough, or long enough to stimulate me and I get agitated. I will then turn a harmless conversation into a debate by jumping to the opposite view.

If that doesn't work I then try to turn it up more by making the conversation faster and by drawing it out in an attempt to achieve more depth with what we are discussing.

Most of the time I truly do listen instead of just waiting to talk, I KNOW I have learned many valid lessons from other people, but I won't lie to you *blush* there are times that the 'little voice in my head' tells me to shut it already but by then it is too late and I am fired up about something.

I will spare you the details but it involves both hand and arm gesturing with a little pacing.


So there is my truth

"Before me were no things created, but eternal; and eternal I endure: leave all hope ye that enter. Here must all distrust be left; all cowardice must here be dead"

Oh no, there's nothing wrong with being the protagonist or even being passionate about your discussion.

Neither of those characteristics depict an "arguer".

What I mean by an "arguer" is someone who tends to disregard everything you say except the one minute detail that "could" be wrong, attaching themselves to that one little detail and making their entire argument about that detail, whereas that one detail isn't relevent in the big picture.

I find being the protagonist very useful in finding out whether or not the person I am discussing with knows what he/she is talking about.

I guess it's all about bullheadedness and ridiculous ego... if you argue with someone just to win an argument, you're an idiot.

I think it's all about listening. If you listen to the other person, and really listen, then you're in search of truth, otherwise you wouldn't be talking to them.

If you're an idiot, you don't listen to them. You don't answer their questions, or you answer them selectively. It's almost as if argumentative people aren't even aware that certain points have been made.

Some morons also base an entire argument around semantics, and at the end of a highly frustrating discussion you realize that they agreed with you, just dissagreed with your use of the word "love" or something.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Here's another thing arguers do: they argue with you and at the end simply state that they wanted to confirm that you weren't including everything in your conclusion.

For example, if you were to state: "Men cheat on women", I can almost guarrantee you you will deal with a plethora of people who will argue with you, then at the end conclude that "yes, a lot of men do cheat on women, just not all of them"

I guess some people have a need to defend themselves, and in an effort to do this they try to point it out by prolonging a debate, thereby ARGUING.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Try putting in facts that don't come directly from yourself.

Like I know you are talking about things I do. But you say that it is annoying because you state the facts and people like me argue it. But what is the reason is because I think you are arguing your point of view not the facts. If you were to back it up or such, either by saying that is a fact I can prove, and when they ask for the proof (if the feel like going that far) then you can present the facts. Otherwise people like me will think you are just stating the ideas and they want to say what their ideas are.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

Logic is logic Dug. That is the entire point of "discussion".

Facts can be brought up to further a point, but discussion is simply the sharing of premises followed by appropriate conclusions.

Facts can be used as premises, but they don't have to be used as premises. Logical assumptions can also be used as premises, because many things are too statistically un-proven to be debatable factually.

Concepts such as God, morality and religion are all based on logical assumption, not facts.

You have to be able to converse in a logical manner, which means you hear and absorb everything else the other person has to say and include any valid points into your discussion.

I agree that facts are very useful, but rarely necessary when both parties are open minded and purely logical.

If you dissagree with my "point of view", then point out where my logic fails. That is the core of discussion.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

That is what I mean, for some reason sometimes I can't find your logic. You might say something and I just read your whole post 5 times and wonder, "Where is your proof?". Sometimes I think you state a fact and I just wonder where the evidence is instead of thinking, that is logical.

(OK, I won't respond anyone, It seems I always respond to your posts and I have to stop. BUT YOU ARE SO GOOD TO DEBATE WITH!)

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

L O L

I think the reason it may look like there is no proof is actually totally my mistake

sometimes I derive a train of thought in my mind and just write the conclusion... so although it may be perfectly logical, I don't give you the details of that logic, so you don't have anything to argue with.

INTERESTING.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I just read your posts on this thread like 20 times.

Personal Question, do you need logic for all areas of your life? What do you have faith in?

Logic brings me the same peace Jesus brings you.

I don't need anything else. I have faith in my feelings, and have found that they are almost always logical, even if it doesn't seem that way at first.

I don't follow ANYTHING blilndly, if that's what you mean.

But there is logic in believing in a god to me too. I Don't confuse my spouting the benefits of logic with science... I believe in spiritual things holding logic as well.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

PARDON, and what the hell we you telling me the other day?


HHmmmmmmm?!?!?

"The Restless Mind - The curiosity of intellectual infancy"

huh? what are you talking about?

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

What do you know.....I dislike those who have a need to pointlessly argue also! Wow we have something in common! I am typically a very non confrontative person, other than in therapy with my clients.

What I do enjoy is debating a topic and presenting a variety of informative and factual information whenever possible. You see Decius, not all of life is Logical. And I too, like the TRUTH to be known. Yet sometimes we have to be able to accept that our personal truth may not be so for the majority.

The way things have been presented, it appears that when someone has a different opinion or style of presenting, "It is arguing", rather than simply presenting facts rather than what appears logical to some. Maybe the real issue here is the need to be right?

What difference does it really make How we get to the truth? The end result was that we found it......but maybe it wasn't the answet some wanted to hear

huh?

The whole point of this thread is the difference between wanting to be right and wanting to find the truth.

Life is logical, because life is cause and effect, which is synonymous with premises and conclusion, which defines logic.

Hence if someone is indeed logical, being right is quite irrelevent of the destination, which is the truth.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

"What difference does it really make How we get to the truth?"
Well unless the "truth" is attained through the statement of facts and use of logic, then you'll never be able to justify what you believe to be the truth.

"AIDS is God's way of sending Catholics to heaven."