Why is Arguing so Detested?

[PurpleRain]

Hi Sasky! Long time no see man.

It?s rather obvious why it?s detested; arguments cause hostility and conflict between people. It?s nice to say ?well lets approach the subject without emotion,? but it?s been said before what that can dissolve into. On top of that an argument may not be an attack on an individual personally, yet it may conflict with personal issues, views, and ideals. For example if someone had a bad experience and then they see an argument on that experience, they are probably going to feel strongly about the topic and be easily offended, which leads to a number of problems. Generally it?s rather easy for people to get offended, and the Internet is a big place.

Spoiler

Agreeing is boring and easy, disagreeing however is totally where it?s at. Conflict is a wonderful thing, and disagreeing is not a bad way to generate some. Drama and conflict are key aspects of entertainment that are way under appreciated outside of your generic entertainment mediums, and are sure to arise in disagreement. It?s like proclaiming depression is joke and victims of gunplay had it coming. You?re going to have a fantastically more entertaining discussion (and possibly get banned for a few days) than any proclamation of agreement could ever spawn.

Not so true. I argue all the time, with friends, family and people I meet or at work, and no one feels bitter about it. Though your second point in the spoiler is good, about defeating bordom.

I have often encountered a view that the point of a discussion is "winning", usually accomplished by either convincing the opponent to assume your point of view, or getting the audience on your side. Obviously, if you assume that this is the case, then you will never want to "lose", and at some point you will run out of arguments - then it devolves into a flamewar.

Why do people think arguments end in flame wars. I have seen arguments between PS3 and the 360 that wasn't (shock horror) on this site as well.
When you run out of arguments, you have basically lost, or declair that you have and end it. It never has to end it a flame war.

Still, the first view seems to prevail, so I always avoid arguments on subjects which can easily become heated (like beliefs and morals), and I tend to back down from any argument where the opponent starts insulting me or arbitrarily declares my arguments to be irrelevant.

See, that's not arguing. At no point in a proper argument is insulting needed. Ever. So really, it could be said that you may have been arguing, or wanting one, but that person who you were doing it with wasn't. Merely just attacking you.

trash talking is great because if you do it more you get better...duh. it helps so much when trying to shut up a loud mouth

That- what? That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

[PurpleRain]

the grudge feeling in the back of your head is not fun

But that is not the way to argue. You should be open with defeat and failure but at the same time defend yourself so that they may see new points of views and hurdles. Best man should win. The loser also wins. No grudge should evolve. Maybe argue with someone you really like, so that neither of you feel that hatred? But then again, if you both don't argue and just insult each other, then it would go very wrong.

Ah of course. But I sometimes find it so hard to believe people are so obsessed over something materialistic as a game, that they find themselves hurt deeply and emotionally when people point out faults in it.

I life Half Life, but I can see many many faults in it which people tend to dispise, and it worries me not.

I've no answers for you.

All I can say is that there are two types of people - fans and fanboys.
A fan is someone who enjoys a game, movie, sport, etc, anywhere from "a fair deal" to "a large amount."

And that's absolutely okay.

A fanboy is someone who is so intensely devoted to something that they refuse or are incapable of seeing the flaws in it - to imply it is anything less than perfect arouses a rage so potent it would actually melt the sun.

God only knows what creates fanboys instead of fans.

So stubberness again. Man, people should learn to chill and keep an open mind to things. I guess that also comes down to security people have. Finding something nice and clinging to it where they feel safe. That also would make sense the agressive pride they have for it when people attempt to attack it. Unleashing said melting heat and giving people sun blistered headaches.

 

[Sparrow]

Because people don't like to be proved wrong.

Thats pretty much it in my opinion.

 

[TopHatTim]

my dad will freak out sometimes because he thinks im arguing when im f*cking not.

 

[NoodleWoman]

I don't know about arguing, but...
Debating is great.
Flaming is bad.

I was gonna say that. Phooey.

 

[NJ]

Arguing = Funny.
Debating = Elitist.
Flaming = Trolling.
Fighting = Juvenile.
Opinions = OMGWTF?

The usual responses from some people reading a post with something... well... informative for once.

 

[kewlrabbit]

I think the problem is there's really no way to "win" an argument on the internet. It goes from lively debate to name calling flame war pretty quickly.

 

[PurpleRain]

I think the problem is there's really no way to "win" an argument on the internet. It goes from lively debate to name calling flame war pretty quickly.

I've won 'em. All the time. I've lost as well. I see it quite a lot of the time. People usually agree with you or say that they didn't look at in your way.

 

[Valiance]

I find arguing a great thing, as long as there's no emotional properties involved. It comes from two opposing sides and pitting them together. If one side is victorious, the other side has learnt something new and gains a new way of thinking. If neither win, at least it has opened the doors to new arguments, new types of thought, and closed the door on failed points.

~snipped the rest~

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and YES.

I have no idea why people think it means I hate them personally when I was simply trying to explain why I think one thing might be better than another thing.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and would love to argue with your post, except I can't.

 

[Leorex]

arguing is the lowest form of talking in the world.

 

[PurpleRain]

I find arguing a great thing, as long as there's no emotional properties involved. It comes from two opposing sides and pitting them together. If one side is victorious, the other side has learnt something new and gains a new way of thinking. If neither win, at least it has opened the doors to new arguments, new types of thought, and closed the door on failed points.

~snipped the rest~

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and YES.

I have no idea why people think it means I hate them personally when I was simply trying to explain why I think one thing might be better than another thing.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and would love to argue with your post, except I can't.

Exactly! You're not attacking them, but demonstrating your view point of a topic as opposed to their own.

arguing is the lowest form of talking in the world.

I really hope that's sarcasm.

 

[PurpleRain]

Actually you make a good point, as that's more or less the same for me. However it's different on the internet, and I would be willing to bet that it has something to do with about 200 people viewing your argument within a minute. More people means greater chance someones going to take it the wrong way, and then that give them motivation to post on the topic.

It either ruins the argument, or makes it oh so much more fun.

I like it. But that's sort of the 'third party' I talked about in my first post, the one that jumps in and tends to spoil the argument. I generally meant that they took the proper discussion the wrong way, but I like how you said that they come in to make insulting claims out of bordom. A proper troll.

 

[Knight Templar]

There is nothing wrong with a argument, there is something wrong when one side takes it personally or can't accept that the other side might not be wrong.

I personally like a bit of a argument, but then somebody uses that "serious business" crap because they want to be right without discussion. Not to say a person must allways be right or wrong, an argument is about diffrent ideas, not right and wrong ones.

 

[Delicious]

I find arguing a great thing, as long as there's no emotional properties involved. It comes from two opposing sides and pitting them together. If one side is victorious, the other side has learnt something new and gains a new way of thinking. If neither win, at least it has opened the doors to new arguments, new types of thought, and closed the door on failed points.

I enjoy the internet and its many forums for this. One big long argument about anything and everything. Everyone can get involved and talk and banter about whatever they want, and in the process learn. Throughout history we've never had something on this scale. But then, why is it so detested?

When arguing with someone, they take such great offence. In a recent one about bull fighting, the person I was arguing against felt like the argument had grown personal so I decided to leave it. When I declared it, the words, "Oh noes, someone's wrong on the internet," cropped up. But, wha- I want an argument, not attempting to iron out the folk online. I'm not using this post as an attack, but as an example. It comes in too many times when people get frustrated over an argument rather then actually have a civilized one, or people are having a civilized argument and a third party jumps in and shouts "Flame war!". People get offended over spelling errors and when someone critiques a review, whereas I love it when people point out a mistake in my ways. It all goes in to help me to learn and construct a better view of the subject.

There is a difference between, "Xbox is better then the PS3!" then "The Xbox is better then the PS3 because it has a wider variety of games and the fact that its processors can do... blah blah blah."

The first only erupts into that thing I mentioned above, a flame war, while the latter is an argument. Even this is a form of argument I am presenting.

So I guess I just want to see what people understand of arguments in general and how they can help themselves and me in the future when arguing.

That argument really bothered you didn't it?
If you felt I took anything you said personally, you gravely misinterpreted my posts. And don't miss-quote me, because that turns it into an attack, whether or not you say otherwise.

 

[PurpleRain]

That argument really bothered you didn't it?
If you felt I took anything you said personally, you gravely misinterpreted my posts. And don't miss-quote me, because that turns it into an attack, whether or not you say otherwise.

Not at all. I was just using an example of how not to argue. It happened so many times in the past, but this was the most recent. I actually really enjoyed the bull fighting argument and want to have more on animal abuse.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

I find arguing a great thing, as long as there's no emotional properties involved. It comes from two opposing sides and pitting them together. If one side is victorious, the other side has learnt something new and gains a new way of thinking. If neither win, at least it has opened the doors to new arguments, new types of thought, and closed the door on failed points... words... words... words...

Your idealism is so cute!

Or maybe it's just the term 'arguing' that you're using. I mean, arguing is inherently negative and unproductive. When two parties are arguing, the chances that they will be productive in the end are very slim. Debating, on the other hand, is the constructive kind. Both are linked in that they rely on disagreement, of course.

Anyway, if you've got a few forumgoers with brains, you'll have a problem-free debate without any extra hassle. Just look at... well, there aren't that many incredibly deep threads around these days, but there have been some in the past.

 

[PurpleRain]

I find arguing a great thing, as long as there's no emotional properties involved. It comes from two opposing sides and pitting them together. If one side is victorious, the other side has learnt something new and gains a new way of thinking. If neither win, at least it has opened the doors to new arguments, new types of thought, and closed the door on failed points... words... words... words...

Your idealism is so cute!

Or maybe it's just the term 'arguing' that you're using. I mean, arguing is inherently negative and unproductive. When two parties are arguing, the chances that they will be productive in the end are very slim. Debating, on the other hand, is the constructive kind. Both are linked in that they rely on disagreement, of course.

Noun
Argument (plural arguments)

-A fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason:
-A process of reasoning.
-(philosophy, logic) A series of statements organized so that the final statement is a conclusion which is intended to follow logically from the preceding statements, which function as premises.

Arguing shouldn't be negative. I don't see how it's gotten such a bad rep? I assume people commonly misusing the word.

Debates however are slightly different to what I'm talking about:

Noun
debate (countable and uncountable; plural debates)

1. An argument, or discussion, usually in an ordered or formal setting, often with more than two people, generally ending with a vote or other decision.

Arguments are more common and less focused.

 

[Delicious]

That argument really bothered you didn't it?
If you felt I took anything you said personally, you gravely misinterpreted my posts. And don't miss-quote me, because that turns it into an attack, whether or not you say otherwise.

Not at all. I was just using an example of how not to argue. It happened so many times in the past, but this was the most recent. I actually really enjoyed the bull fighting argument and want to have more on animal abuse.

How was it an example of how not to argue? If you mean because people got rather heated about it, that should be expected. We aren't robots; our emotions will inevitably be involved in whatever we do. If you attack someone's personal beliefs, they will take it personally. If they don't, they don't care about the argument in the first place.

To be honest it sounds like you are just upset because you didn't outright win an argument, as you've mentioned it as if it necessitates a winner and a loser quite a few times now.

 

[TheBarefootBandit]

Arguing usually just gets to the point where neither side is willing to give up and just becomes a screaming match.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

I find arguing a great thing, as long as there's no emotional properties involved. It comes from two opposing sides and pitting them together. If one side is victorious, the other side has learnt something new and gains a new way of thinking. If neither win, at least it has opened the doors to new arguments, new types of thought, and closed the door on failed points.

I enjoy the internet and its many forums for this. One big long argument about anything and everything. Everyone can get involved and talk and banter about whatever they want, and in the process learn. Throughout history we've never had something on this scale. But then, why is it so detested?

When arguing with someone, they take such great offence. In a recent one about bull fighting, the person I was arguing against felt like the argument had grown personal so I decided to leave it. When I declared it, the words, "Oh noes, someone's wrong on the internet," cropped up. But, wha- I want an argument, not attempting to iron out the folk online. I'm not using this post as an attack, but as an example. It comes in too many times when people get frustrated over an argument rather then actually have a civilized one, or people are having a civilized argument and a third party jumps in and shouts "Flame war!". People get offended over spelling errors and when someone critiques a review, whereas I love it when people point out a mistake in my ways. It all goes in to help me to learn and construct a better view of the subject.

There is a difference between, "Xbox is better then the PS3!" then "The Xbox is better then the PS3 because it has a wider variety of games and the fact that its processors can do... blah blah blah."

The first only erupts into that thing I mentioned above, a flame war, while the latter is an argument. Even this is a form of argument I am presenting.

So I guess I just want to see what people understand of arguments in general and how they can help themselves and me in the future when arguing.

I think why people hate arguing so much, is because you identify another's intellegence based on how much they agree with the points so much and when they disagree you deem them stupid, refusing to argue with them further because you feel it beneath you. Thats just my take though.