4 ms·

You're one of the best posters here imo, so good job. I disagree that argument is about recognizing each other's rhetorical flourishes. Argument is much, much,

You're one of the best posters here imo, so good job. I disagree that argument is about recognizing each other's rhetorical flourishes. Argument is much, much, much more often about people opposed to each other, and bystanders making a decision about who won. See: courts.

M_Grey 9y ago
First of all, thank you, I really appreciate your kind words. Beyond that, I agree utterly about the notion that argument is too often seen as a sport or a "winning" game. The best arguments IMO are ones in which both parties are reaching out to each other, trying to make a point or communicate some idea. It's a contest, but it's also cooperative when everything goes well. I think about the Wright Brothers, who used the old rhetorical trick of, when they reached an impasse, switching positions in an argument. That's the way to do it! You can be hugely invested in a position, but still be willing to challenge it.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  I don't know if I agree that the best arguments result in agreement between opponents. It's nice to have and good when it happens, but many arguments boil down to matters where there are, in very real terms, winners and losers. Not everything can be patched up procedurally, nor can people "switch up" when it's eg: a black man told to try to understand the slaver's argument. It's good to develop some capabilities to cope with difficult and heated discussions.
  - M_Grey 9y ago
    >I don't know if I agree that the best arguments result in agreement between opponents. They don't end in agreement, they begin with cooperation; you might not resolve the argument, or your position might prevail, or even change. As you say, there is no argument to be had in some cases, there is no reason. I'm talking about a methodology, rather than an outcome; you can still disagree. That said, in the case of something like the slave and their master, I'd suggest that an argument is pointless in any case; what's needed is a fight (in the literal sense).
    - RodericDay 9y ago
      Hmmm.... I think that a lot of these "people jumped on me on social media!" anecdotes aren't because people said they preferred Spartacus over Game of Thrones (Spartacus is way way better btw), but because they got involved in one of those debates that is tantamount to a fight. Like abortion, or wealth inequality, or police brutality, or gay rights, or race and IQ.
      - M_Grey 9y ago
        Exactly... some arguments you can only have with people you know very well... and sometimes not even then. We're only human after all, and the tribalism runs deep. If you try to have a reasonable discussion with someone about certain topics, the whole thing goes nuclear. It takes a lot of work from two people with wildly opposing views for that not to happen.
- andromeda__ 9y ago
  >when they reached an impasse, switching positions in an argument Wow! That's insanely good. You'd actually get to do one of two things; see the holes in your argument or see the holes in the opposing argument. Works both ways.

M_Grey 9y ago

First of all, thank you, I really appreciate your kind words. Beyond that, I agree utterly about the notion that argument is too often seen as a sport or a "winning" game. The best arguments IMO are ones in which both parties are reaching out to each other, trying to make a point or communicate some idea. It's a contest, but it's also cooperative when everything goes well. I think about the Wright Brothers, who used the old rhetorical trick of, when they reached an impasse, switching positions in an argument. That's the way to do it! You can be hugely invested in a position, but still be willing to challenge it.

RodericDay 9y ago
I don't know if I agree that the best arguments result in agreement between opponents. It's nice to have and good when it happens, but many arguments boil down to matters where there are, in very real terms, winners and losers. Not everything can be patched up procedurally, nor can people "switch up" when it's eg: a black man told to try to understand the slaver's argument. It's good to develop some capabilities to cope with difficult and heated discussions.
- M_Grey 9y ago
  >I don't know if I agree that the best arguments result in agreement between opponents. They don't end in agreement, they begin with cooperation; you might not resolve the argument, or your position might prevail, or even change. As you say, there is no argument to be had in some cases, there is no reason. I'm talking about a methodology, rather than an outcome; you can still disagree. That said, in the case of something like the slave and their master, I'd suggest that an argument is pointless in any case; what's needed is a fight (in the literal sense).
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    Hmmm.... I think that a lot of these "people jumped on me on social media!" anecdotes aren't because people said they preferred Spartacus over Game of Thrones (Spartacus is way way better btw), but because they got involved in one of those debates that is tantamount to a fight. Like abortion, or wealth inequality, or police brutality, or gay rights, or race and IQ.
    - M_Grey 9y ago
      Exactly... some arguments you can only have with people you know very well... and sometimes not even then. We're only human after all, and the tribalism runs deep. If you try to have a reasonable discussion with someone about certain topics, the whole thing goes nuclear. It takes a lot of work from two people with wildly opposing views for that not to happen.
andromeda__ 9y ago
>when they reached an impasse, switching positions in an argument Wow! That's insanely good. You'd actually get to do one of two things; see the holes in your argument or see the holes in the opposing argument. Works both ways.