3 ms·

That's more performative arguing then constructive arguing, no? Within the context of applying an argument constructively, I think it's a good list.

• Daub 3y ago
  > That's more performative arguing then constructive arguing, no? That's a nice distinction. But from a practioners point if view, I see little difference. Who would argue without the implicit desire to convince/convert? Agreed... It is a good list. The recommendation to argue in person and not via media is very pertinent. One thing the list misses is the importance and power of facts. Indeed, the English philosopher Hume positioned facts as the atomic indivisible of philosophical discorse. Of course, facts can be twistered... But ultimately there is no such thing as 'your facts' and 'my facts'. Anyone with the facts at their disposal has the power of god in an argument. Like him or loath him, this acounts for the ability of Chriopher Hitchinns to completely destroy his opononets (Aka the famous Hitchslap).
  • dekleinewolf 3y ago
    > Who would argue without the implicit desire to convince/convert? Me? I'm an engineer, when I 'argue' with my co-workers, it is with the goal of finding the best solution. I don't care whose solution it is. I want to find consensus on what is the best solution.
    • Daub 3y ago
      To be clear, I am all for thesis/antithesis/synthesis in argument. I use it all the time at work. However, without some form of positioal oposition there can be no argument.
      • greenie_beans 3y ago
        this is very meta. an argument about arguing on a post about arguing.