Why is Arguing so Detested?

[PurpleRain]

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.

Oh no. You take my remarks in the wrong way or as sarcasm. I usually am too happy-go-lucky to attempt to attack anyone. But the main reason that argument ended in vain was because it made a full circle which annoyed me seeing as I was enjoying it. It was your last quote which I made the reference too:

I'm sorry. I will not further this. You have not won, neither have I. I just feel... ugh.

You are upset because someone on the internet disagrees with you?

This is not at all my case. The entire fact I was arguing was because you did disagree with me; I didn't care about the internet.

 

[Delicious]

What I?m really not too fond of, that occurs a lot on the internet, is when you meet up with that particular brand of incompetence that instead of arguing against your actual post, they continuously argue a similar claim that was never made substituting it for your actual post, successfully crafting an array of straw man arguments. But me, I?m not one to just shout fallacy and say we?re done, so I just go along with there argument, and then they do it again, with every post they change the topic to fit there argument and we get no where.

This is the crux of the endless argument. I've experienced many arguments where I've had to stop and ask my opponent to clarify his argument, only to realize that neither he nor I could remember, and upon asking myself the same question discovering the same issue with my argument.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Words

Dictionary definitions are mostly forgotten these days. Besides, denotation is only half of the party. You're forgetting connotation, which is what gives arguing a negative overtone.

 

[PurpleRain]

What I?m really not too fond of, that occurs a lot on the internet, is when you meet up with that particular brand of incompetence that instead of arguing against your actual post, they continuously argue a similar claim that was never made substituting it for your actual post, successfully crafting an array of straw man arguments. But me, I?m not one to just shout fallacy and say we?re done, so I just go along with there argument, and then they do it again, with every post they change the topic to fit there argument and we get no where.

This is the crux of the endless argument. I've experienced many arguments where I've had to stop and ask my opponent to clarify his argument, only to realize that neither he nor I could remember, and upon asking myself the same question discovering the same issue with my argument.

I actually like that sometimes. A tangent that goes so far off the tracks, you end up arguing about things that didn't matter. And how I see it as, learning more stuff.

Words

Dictionary definitions are mostly forgotten these days. Besides, denotation is only half of the party. You're forgetting connotation, which is what gives arguing a negative overtone.

I still use it with a positive tone. I try and use word meanings to the fullest and original source.

 

[Delicious]

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.

Oh no. You take my remarks in the wrong way or as sarcasm. I usually am too happy-go-lucky to attempt to attack anyone. But the main reason that argument ended in vain was because it made a full circle which annoyed me seeing as I was enjoying it. It was your last quote which I made the reference too:

I'm sorry. I will not further this. You have not won, neither have I. I just feel... ugh.

You are upset because someone on the internet disagrees with you?

This is not at all my case. The entire fact I was arguing was because you did disagree with me; I didn't care about the internet.

It made a full circle because, as a direct result of the nature of the argument, neither one of us could directly prove the other wrong, as we were arguing perception. I perceived humans as being superior to animals due to our achievements and capabilities, and you perceived humans equal to animals because of our natural similarities. I feel myself correct (for if I didn't I would not be arguing) but can not come up with any further evidence than what was already mentioned, which you did not accept.

My last comment had nothing to do with your overall argument as much as it dealt with how you left it. The "I just feel...ugh" coupled with how you implied that articulating what you felt about me personally was ban worthy gave me the impression that you were upset that I didn't agree with you, as you gave no indication to the contrary until this moment.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

I still use it with a positive tone. I try and use word meanings to the fullest and original source.

Respectable, but I still don't think that's worthwhile given that conversation is the one thing you've got to keep up-to-date with the mainstream. Interaction with other people will only be hampered if you try to keep old-world definitions alive (for example, calling happy people 'gay' won't get you anywhere fast).

 

[PurpleRain]

It made a full circle because, as a direct result of the nature of the argument, neither one of us could directly prove the other wrong, as we were arguing perception. I perceived humans as being superior to animals due to our achievements and capabilities, and you perceived humans equal to animals because of our natural similarities. I feel myself correct (for if I didn't I would not be arguing) but can not come up with any further evidence than what was already mentioned, which you did not accept.

My last comment had nothing to do with your overall argument as much as it dealt with how you left it. The "I just feel...ugh" coupled with how you implied that articulating what you felt about me personally was ban worthy gave me the impression that you were upset that I didn't agree with you, as you gave no indication to the contrary until this moment.

Ah yes. Sorry. I see your point. Ours was a tricky subject to discuss and most likely been repeated hundreds of times. I'd like to do it again one day if I find more information.

While writing this and looking at what we did, I wonder if typing to a screen imposses something? I can't exactly tell your expressions and neither can you to mine. Perhaps not knowing a tone of writing has something to do with it. (Of course, someone swearing and verbaly abusing people has quite a clear meaning)

I still use it with a positive tone. I try and use word meanings to the fullest and original source.

Respectable, but I still don't think that's worthwhile given that conversation is the one thing you've got to keep up-to-date with the mainstream. Interaction with other people will only be hampered if you try to keep old-world definitions alive (for example, calling happy people 'gay' won't get you anywhere fast).

I call strange thing 'queer'. I try to use gay as happy, but I rarely find the place to use it. But I see your point.

 

[Delicious]

It made a full circle because, as a direct result of the nature of the argument, neither one of us could directly prove the other wrong, as we were arguing perception. I perceived humans as being superior to animals due to our achievements and capabilities, and you perceived humans equal to animals because of our natural similarities. I feel myself correct (for if I didn't I would not be arguing) but can not come up with any further evidence than what was already mentioned, which you did not accept.

My last comment had nothing to do with your overall argument as much as it dealt with how you left it. The "I just feel...ugh" coupled with how you implied that articulating what you felt about me personally was ban worthy gave me the impression that you were upset that I didn't agree with you, as you gave no indication to the contrary until this moment.

Ah yes. Sorry. I see your point. Ours was a tricky subject to discuss and most likely been repeated hundreds of times. I'd like to do it again one day if I find more information.

While writing this and looking at what we did, I wonder if typing to a screen imposses something? I can't exactly tell your expressions and neither can you to mine. Perhaps not knowing a tone of writing has something to do with it. (Of course, someone swearing and verbaly abusing people has quite a clear meaning)

I still use it with a positive tone. I try and use word meanings to the fullest and original source.

Respectable, but I still don't think that's worthwhile given that conversation is the one thing you've got to keep up-to-date with the mainstream. Interaction with other people will only be hampered if you try to keep old-world definitions alive (for example, calling happy people 'gay' won't get you anywhere fast).

I call strange thing 'queer'. I try to use gay as happy, but I rarely find the place to use it. But I see your point.

That is a significant disadvantage that comes with an internet argument. I tried guessing your tone through looking at your diction and (more specifically) your repetition, but that didn't work out very well as I know now that I missed the mark pretty severely, especially now knowing that you prefer to use words by their original, denotative meanings. I still think it is possible to pick up tone through text, but only with sufficient background information.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Noun
Argument (plural arguments)

1. A fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason:
2. A verbal dispute; a quarrel.
3. A process of reasoning.
4. (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.

I don't see how this is bad. Arguments have a bad rep, and I'm really wondering why? Why do people get so pissed off. I love it.

I guess people see arguments as this:
A verbal dispute; a quarrel.
rather then how I see it as number 1, 3 and 4.

1, 3, and 4 are debate terms. Like an argument for the world being round would be star charts. Definition 2 would be trying to convice a flat world beliver that the world is round.


I can't speak for everyone else but to me the term to argue carries an unspoken feel of trying to change some one elses mind. Most people are emotionaly attached to there opinions and no set of resoning (or argument) will change them (don't even think of starting a religion based thred on the internet). Hence I find arguing to be pointless.

Disscussion on the other hand carries no such stigma. To me it means the exchange of ideas, with no preconcived notions of changing the other persons mind.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

To save time, I will clarify: Purple Rain, the Ninja of the Imperial Senate, is defining arguing as a constructive, healthy and vigorous debate between two or more people. I must say, I have had some excellent debates on the internet. A year or so ago, myself and Saskwatch got into a lively exchange of views over the dropping of the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While he did not convince me*, his force and strength of debate did leave me impressed AND expanded my knowledge on the subject.

Likewise, my economic debates with Dele have often been extremely intense, with me waiting by the computer for him to post so I could continue my rebuttal. While neither of us agreed, I'd say both of us respected one another's skills and logic, came to some different conclusions on specific points and most importantly, had fun.


From personal experience, I'd say that a touch of emotional involvement if used correctly is a good thing. It inspires you to work all the harder, to outdo your oppoenent and most of all, it makes it fun.


*Subsequently I became a pro-bomb believer, mainly due to my expanded knowledge.

 

[Scarecrow38]

Arguments on the Internet always degenerate into anger. The things you say start out as being two opposing viewpoints. Over time though, some things are interpreted as you being condescending and arrogant and vice versa. Arguments are good in real life, but the lack of non- verbal communication creates unintended anger.

 

[Saskwach]

I must say, I have had some excellent debates on the internet. A year or so ago, myself and Saskwatch got into a lively exchange of views over the dropping of the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While he did not convince me*, his force and strength of debate did leave me impressed AND expanded my knowledge on the subject.

Really? Wow. My whole conception of internet debates might have to be reviewed. I have a lot to think about.
(No sarcasm. I actually figured that would seem an uneventful debate from your point of view.)

Hi Sasky! Long time no see man.

Hey there. I might show my face a bit more often now, but it depends on how often I see threads more interesting than "Your Birth Date" or whatever. Still, I've learned to put a greater emphasis on learning than opinionating lately. So how's that Canadian minx?

 

[dwightsteel]

Arguments are bad. They usually accomplish nothing, and all parties end up pissed off at each other.

Civilized debates, on the other hand...

....to argue comes from the latin word arguer and means to reprove. Arguing means to use words for or against something. And to debate literally means "a contention by words or arguments".

For anyone who has never actually formally debated or taken any classes, debating is argument. As a matter of fact, points are often referred to as either "contentions" or "arguments".

The word "argue" might have bad connotations, but it doesn't make the OP any less right for his word usage. Debating is arguing. No two ways about it. And this isn't just to you SilentHunter. You're not the first person to make this statement, yours was just the quickest to quote.

 

[xChevelle24]

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.

You would love the Chromehounds forums then. All that they do is argue and argue and argue. It's fucking hilarious.

 

[dwightsteel]

I can't speak for everyone else but to me the term to argue carries an unspoken feel of trying to change some one elses mind. Most people are emotionaly attached to there opinions and no set of resoning (or argument) will change them (don't even think of starting a religion based thred on the internet). Hence I find arguing to be pointless.

I get that, for some, the words "argue" or "argument" have these poor connotations. Thankfully though, it appears that I'm not the only person who feels that this is way melodramatic. The problem with the word debate, especially in informal settings, is that it holds this air of pretentiousness. Besides, I've been debating for years, first in high school, then in college, in many different iterations (mostly LD, but I've dabbled in Cross X and Public Forum), and I've seen many a rational debate devolve into straight up mudslinging (some of my favorite debates as I recall. My senior year in High School, I made a kid cry). Personally, I prefer the term arguing. There are no expectations when I argue.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Arguing is annoying, especially when one side's being an idiot and is clearly wrong but won't accept it.
Debating is good, as it remains civil.

 

[ergoaddict]

"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance" - Robert Quillen

"In most instances, all an argument proves is that two people are present" - Tony Petito

Courtesy of that great repository of wisdom, QI.

For further observations on the nature of argument, Monty Python's Argument Clinic is highly recommended - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

 

[Jharry5]

I think its actually nigh on impossible to have a civil debate or argument on the internet (from what I can tell, anyway), mainly because it only takes one misreading to spark off anger, changing the dabate. Online, you miss out on facial expressions, body language and voice intonation etc, which can help to convey a message. I think it's this reason that makes flaming so common (as sarcasm isn't conveyed well via text...)

 

[Sgt Doom]

Over the years i've grown bored to death of it, as it's just the same shit rehashed all over agan and again and again.

 

[PurpleRain]

To save time, I will clarify: Purple Rain, the Ninja of the Imperial Senate, is defining arguing as a constructive, healthy and vigorous debate between two or more people. I must say, I have had some excellent debates on the internet. A year or so ago, myself and Saskwatch got into a lively exchange of views over the dropping of the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While he did not convince me*, his force and strength of debate did leave me impressed AND expanded my knowledge on the subject.

Pretty much. You've summed up my thoughts in better words then my own. Thanks. Plus 'Ninja of the Imperial Senate'? I dig.

Wow. My whole conception of internet debates might have to be reviewed. I have a lot to think about.
(No sarcasm. I actually figured that would seem an uneventful debate from your point of view.)

I've actually learnt a lot from the internet with debates and whatnot.

Hi Sasky! Long time no see man.

Hey there. I might show my face a bit more often now, but it depends on how often I see threads more interesting than "Your Birth Date" or whatever. Still, I've learned to put a greater emphasis on learning than opinionating lately. So how's that Canadian minx?

Ditto. I'm mostly a lurker now. She's great. I'm going back there July 28th on a one way ticket. Huzzah!

Arguments are bad. They usually accomplish nothing, and all parties end up pissed off at each other.

Civilized debates, on the other hand...

....to argue comes from the latin word arguer and means to reprove. Arguing means to use words for or against something. And to debate literally means "a contention by words or arguments".

For anyone who has never actually formally debated or taken any classes, debating is argument. As a matter of fact, points are often referred to as either "contentions" or "arguments".

The word "argue" might have bad connotations, but it doesn't make the OP any less right for his word usage. Debating is arguing. No two ways about it. And this isn't just to you SilentHunter. You're not the first person to make this statement, yours was just the quickest to quote.

Thankyou. I had no idea of the history of the word. I don't see the word as its dennotation and nothing more really.