Debate or argument?

[skysidhe]

The fine art of debating is lost in text form. Without hearing a persons tone of voice it may seem like an argument when really it is debating.

I think when it get's down to put downs and name calling then one can be sure it's an argument.

The only person I argued with was my x boyfriend who insisted it was not ok for me to feel upset when he hung up on me twice.
Now that became an argument!

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

The fine art of debating is lost in text form. Without hearing a persons tone of voice it may seem like an argument when really it is debating.

Bravo, sky. You are absolutely right.

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

The fine art of debating is lost in text form. Without hearing a persons tone of voice it may seem like an argument when really it is debating.

I agree with this, and I agree with Weird Harold. It mystifies me that people find insults amusing, and confrontation entertaining.

I do not find them so.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Either, it is all constructive on some level.

There is a difference between constructive and therapeutic. Debate is often constructive for all parties concerned (opposing and spectator) as it forces reexamination that may either change; or, reinforce opinion. Argument often does not have this effect because it need not revolve around the topic at hand (e.g. it may be a personality conflict). Argument can be cathartic and even therapeutic; but, all too often for only one of the parties involved. Those who believe "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." might see argument as having a constructive purpose. In reality; however, what doesn't kill a person might cripple them for life.

Originally Posted by Cloud

I agree with this, and I agree with Weird Harold. It mystifies me that people find insults amusing, and confrontation entertaining.

I do not find them so.

When there is argument just for the sake of argument and it becomes a matter of one-upmanship (something of a sport), sometimes there are ingenious plays. It can be very entertaining. Arguments in which the parties are merely venting are not typically entertaining even though they may serve some useful purpose (see above).

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

The fine art of debating is lost in text form. Without hearing a persons tone of voice it may seem like an argument when really it is debating.

I disagree completely. I spend a lot of time in the academic world, where text is the primary mode of debate. Text gives you the luxury of taking time to consider your response, of accurately referencing the previous points made by others, of visually organizing the flow of ideas to aid understanding ... there are many advantages to text.

One key difference between debate and argument, I think particularly on the internet, is the integrity of the participants. Here's what I mean - if you enter an debate, trying to persuade someone else of the rightness of your idea, then you made an implied agreement that the debate forum is legitimate, and that the best idea will emerge and be believed by both sides.

This requires that each person who enters a debate be willing to leave believing something different than when they entered. I may believe very strongly in the rightness of the pro-life position, but if I cannot even entertain the possibility that I might be wrong, if I am not open to having my mind changed by a more reasonable set of ideas, then I am not entering the debate with integrity. I'm just attempting to use the forum of debate to do propaganda.

People debate differently when they enter as real participants, truly willing to have their mind changed, truly interested in changing someone else's mind on the basis of reason. And that's a good thing.