An Argument vs. A Discussion...

[GroobyKrissy]

I'm just throwing this out there... because I've heard this "lots of arguments" I think... 5 times now this AM.

Can people not have a discussion without people calling it an argument anymore? Does a discussion even exist or are the two inseparable these days?

Let's argue about that discussion.

For me... most things are a discussion...

A discussion is two (or more, obviously) people sharing ideas, questioning them, refuting them, and engaging the other to think for themselves...

An argument is when there is no further discussion and just personal attacking remains...

A personal attack is belittling something about the person's character or appearance that has nothing to do with the discussion... i.e. - saying someone is being hypocritical is not a personal attack when it goes to undermining their principle point...

Are these things not taught in school anymore or have we just become a society where we don't discuss... we argue?

Discuss.

[dderek123]

It seems like discussions turn into arguments when people can't agree to disagree and respect each other's views. Some posters here are more contentious than others though.

I'm guilty of arguing when I should be discussing too. When I think back to my university days I was horrible for that.

[bte]

I used to be able to tell the difference between an argument and discussion. Nowadays, not so much. Seems like a discussion always seem to escalate into an argument.

[GroobyKrissy]

I used to be able to tell the difference between an argument and discussion. Nowadays, not so much. Seems like a discussion always seem to escalate into an argument.

Why do you think that is?

Personally, I think it is because we expect people to say things in 140 characters or less, and most things just can't be discussed in that short of a span thoroughly.

Also, we've become a society that lacks critical thinking skills or the attention spans to read, partially because we're just so damn busy and partially because we have just become lazy.

[GroobyKrissy]

It seems like discussions turn into arguments when people can't agree to disagree and respect each other's views. Some posters here are more contentious than others though.

I'm guilty of arguing when I should be discussing too. When I think back to my university days I was horrible for that.

I don't think you can always "agree to disagree". Sometimes the point is so significant it is a, "if you can't concede that your point is unsupported and therefore invalid - we can't continue the discussion". Which I guess is, in a way, agreeing to disagree.

Perhaps I should just start stating that. I guess I get stuck when I feel that the point I am making is outlined so logically that it cannot possibly be wrong. Obviously, some people don't, can't, or just won't see it that way and I should start realizing that sooner.

[Prospero]

well said Krissy

[runningdownthatdream]

Why do you think that is?

Personally, I think it is because we expect people to say things in 140 characters or less, and most things just can't be discussed in that short of a span thoroughly.

Also, we've become a society that lacks critical thinking skills or the attention spans to read, partially because we're just so damn busy and partially because we have just become lazy.

I disagree. I think people argue because it is human nature to devolve to our basest instincts whenever threatened. Few people can control that urge. It appears to be more prevalent now because we have technological tools that enable just about anyone who can pay for a cell phone or internet access to voice their 'opinion' in multiple places almost simultaneously to an audience numbering anywhere from 1 to millions. And EVERYONE wants to believe their thoughts are more important and valid than the next person.

You seem to be inferring that there were good old days where people were more polite, educated, and industrious. This is false. More people now have formal education but the basic tenets of old school education based on classical Roman or Greek methods are being replaced by more touchy/feely, nobody-is-ever-wrong, accept everyone, validate every opinion no matter how invalid, live for the moment idealogy. Is it good? Is it bad? No matter,,,,it just is.

[nysprod]

When you engage in discussion you have to accept there will be times when the other person will not agree with you no matter how clearly presented and/or logical your views may be. Once that becomes clear the discussion is over, there's no point in continuing it. If it does, the probability the discussion will then devolve into an argument which includes personal attacks is high.

[Prospero]

[bluesoul]

the only time when discussion works here is when everyone agrees. as soon as someone disagrees they are either labelled a hater or a troll.

another thing that makes discussion impossible is when people questions others right to have opinions by saying "i've been at this for 20 plus years so my opinion clearly has precedence over yours" or "you're one to talk. you're not even a woman/man etc"

it's impossible to have discussions with people that don't know how to discuss and are clearly only about getting people to agree with them. most times people fail to "win" people to their corner, then they threaten they will quit/leave or request for the other party to be banned