I am intimately familiar with the definition of argument being "moving from a premise to a conclusion in a series of discrete logical steps" as well as "that stupid thing you put after your programming command that I always fucking forget"!

 

That's not exactly condtradicting what I said.

The point is that a debate is about winning and a discussion is not. Right now, we're not having a discussion. We're using absolutes and each trying to define a word that in reality, we both know what it means, and that meaning is not synonomous with debate. A debate is a competition, just like any other competition, and a discussion is not. You do not have to be right to win a debate; you just need to make other people think you're right. Debates are nothing but a waste of time.


Kimiko: dictionary.com is not a valid source. Use a definition from merriam-webster. Also, we were using a specific, colloquial definition. Nice try though, even though it was not the least bit relevant.

 

It doesn't matter whether you find it boring or not. If you don't want to participate in a discussion then don't. It's about mutual respect, not mutual admiration, and unless you know for a fact that you are right and can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt then you're in no position to not respect another's opinion or not agree to disagree with that person.

A discussion, as I said before, is simply conversing, a free-flow of ideas, whereas a debate is trying to win and be seen as "right".

 

Umm... Here is another definition of argument.

"A form of expression consisting of a coherent set of reasons presenting or supporting a point of view; a series of reasons given for or against a matter under discussion that is intended to convince or persuade the listener."

Ref. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/argument

This means making your case... Of course, the other definition is the act of arguing.

I do believe that in the case of informal debate people often do say, ok we will have to agree to disagree after they have discussed something for awhile and come to that realization... I know that I have.

Actually, Baller - what are we doing now? I mean you, me and XO... We're having a discussion about arguments and debates - right? Well, we'll keep discussing this topic for awhile and perhaps we'll agree, but maybe we won't in the end.

If we don't agree then we'll most likely agree to disagree... You know, our discussion is also an informal debate and we're presenting arguments too, but in a civilized fashion right now. It's nice too, btw.

 

If you insist...



Definition of ARGUMENT

1
obsolete : an outward sign : indication

2
a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal
b : discourse intended to persuade


Do you see any indication there that an argument has to be uncivil or violent? I don't.

 

Yeah, you're right - Baller, in that people can just talk without arguing or debating too... Well, I think it's all semantics now and that it's the intended purpose of the conversation that defines whether it's a formal or informal debate or a conversation about without any opposition contained within it.

 

The problem is, I've never seen Baller have a discussion in which he didn't, at some point, say something that is patently, demonstrably false. It's a rather unusual trait of his, perhaps unique to him. I don't know how these things got planted in his brain, but I find that I'm unable to resist the impulse to correct him. And if I don't, someone else does. And when that happens, civil discourse becomes considerably more difficult to sustain.

 

I'd like to refer you and Kimiko to the post of x_orion's that I quoted..

This is the post I was referring to, Carrie J and Kimiko. x_orion is the one who brought the word argument into it in the first place, and he used it in a specific way.

He wasn't talking about presenting an argument(which I already knew what that meant, as I'm quite sure I mentioned it in another post)

This bold/italicized part right here is how you speak in a discussion. The second you stop saying things like "I think, in my opinion, etc", it is no longer a discussion.

 

Yikes.. My apologies Waf and Kimi. I hadn't noticed that you joined the discussion when I made my last post.

 

Find me an example of an actual discussion in which this happened.

You're not going to. Do you know why? Because "correcting" someone is not part of a discussion. Well, that and because you're rarely ever right when attempting to correct me on something you incorrectly feel is wrong.

 

To employ a popular bromide, you're entitled to your own opinions. You are NOT, however, entitled to your own facts. Pointing out factual errors another person makes is the essence of discussion.

 

Neither are you, sweetie.

You've also yet to actually be a part of this discussion, as you've yet to actually discuss anything.

Now that you've proven that you're doing nothing but trying to throw catty little digs my way and "correct" me on something you incorrectly feel I am wrong about, back to ignoring you I go. I'd appreciate if anybody who actually wants to be a part of a discussion would do the same, as doing otherwise would be ending your part in this discussion.

 

Monkey has become the Sarah Palin of the forum. :awesome: He simply will not engage with anyone who doesn't show him deference.

-S-

 

Right, he was talking about arguing a case - which was my other stated definition; the act of arguing... So, what happens when I stop saying things like "I think, in my opinion, etc"? I didn't say them in this post as you can see... :excited:

 

This is just your usual way of defining away your problems. Anybody who doesn't participate in a discussion the way you want them to, or in accordance with your arbitrary rules, is by definition not part of the discussion. I'm reminded of your notion that you can't learn anything by reading books, and that therefore anybody who DOES read books or cite them as a source is subject to dismissal.

 

Ha! I remember that. The only knowledge one is allowed to have is that which one is born with. In other words, shitting and eating and eventually, jerking off.

-S-

 

Baller, I don't think you should dismiss Kimi... imho I don't think she's personally attacking you.

 

I love facts that can be documented, and proving that an opponent's assertion is factually incorrect. For example, in the "Sara Palin" thread Yeehaarider said Palin won her debate with Joe Biden. In comment #11 I easily refuted that assertion. :excited:
https://forum.xnxx.com/showthread.php?t=187169

I also like to point out logical fallacies in opponents' arguments.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

It might seem nasty to some when I write "[sic]" after errors of grammar and spelling. It is not as nasty as the name calling and flaming that goes on around here, however.

Facts matter. Logic matters. Spelling matters. Grammar matters. Flaming is the resort of the adolescent bully who became a chronological adult without maturing. :idea:

 

With respect, this is wrong. Utterly, utterly wrong. Forgive me if this isn't a discussion any more by your terms, but to say that debates are a waste of time is simply ludicrous.

On subjective issues - perhaps, say, the morality of fox-hunting using horse and hound - a debate is invaluable. The defined structure of it allows for reasonable, well-considered dialogue to take place that is not clouded by emotion. It allows for a higher standard of rigour to be achieved than in a discussion.

I am finding your increasingly narrow definitions more and more difficult to work with. If you and I are discussing quantum physics and you, in passing, define a photon as a charged particle, I will correct you - yet we continue to have a discussion. When one person is using a technical term incorrectly, it is important for the furtherance of the discussion that the error be rectified.

Lastly, it becomes confusing if you get increasingly technical about your definitions of 'discussion' and 'debate', yet continue to use argument in the colloquial sense. I understand that you were referring to the post I made, but it's important to define explicitly every time to avoid the very real threat of equivocational fallacy.

 

No no no, you don't understand the Monkey brain. To disagree with Monkey, to suggest that the world is not exactly how he says it is, is to personally attack him. If you say he is not the pinnacle of human evolution (which he doesn't believe, anyway) you are attacking him personally.

-S-