arguing

There are a variety of techniques for dialogue. Ultimately the goal is to build knowledge and understanding through repectful but stimulating interraction.

These discussions can be divided into four categories.

Contradiction

While contradiction can be used in an argument in and of itself basically contradiction is the statement of a position opposite to one already made.

This category of dialogue can be conducted respectfully but is relatively superficial.

Arguments

Arguments differ from contradiction because they need to include a reason or set of reasons with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

That is, arguments are rational, and while without care they can morph into more heated discussion with care they can be conducted in a very respectful manner relative to all participants.

Debate

Debates are in essence an argument within the context of a formal structure. The may be moderated with time periods set for each participant to put forward their points. The topic is usually defined and the discussion held within the topics boundaries.

These are respectful in nature,the rules of the debate are designed to make that the case. Although, as in the example of the recent U.S. presendential election debates, this is not always achieved.

Fighting

The main difference between a fight and all the other categories involves the use of personal attacks. As soon as the dialogue moves from the focus of the topic to the personal (easily identified when the pronouns “I or you ” enter the conversation), it is more a fight than anything else.

This is basic human nature, the personal statements are interpreted as attacks, and attack is the underpinning of a fight. These discussions quickly move from the rational to the emotional.

This category is to be avoided.

A very cool aspect of post secondary environments is the propensity to argue. This is done in a respectful manner with a prime goal of learning.

The discussions give reasons in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view. This results, whether the argument is resolved or not, in the acquiring of new, or modifying and reinforcing of existing, knowledge (i.e., learning).

Enlightenment versus Action

The key attribute of these discussions is the intended result. That is the creation of knowledge. These arguments are not focused on changing behaviour or proving superiority, rather to create or expand u derstanding.

For me, as I move into the twightlight of life (there are more seniors in Canada than children under 14) it offers the opportunity to exercise my intelligence in ways I have not done heretofore.

The focus is not based on a tangible business case. The purpose is not to improve profit, satisfy shareholders or customers but rather for the good of everyone.

Ultimately that is what knowledge does, it improves the whole human race. Whether philosophical, medical or scientific; understanding might or might not have real economic or other measurable benefits but it does have value.

On the whole it results in the betterment of the human condition. So kudos to the human race for recognizing this and supporting and promoting higher education.

Kerrzone Musings

Tag Archives: arguing

Contradiction, Argument, Debate and Fighting

Random interesting comments on everything