Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Argumentitivity
So I recently was in an argumnet. For those of you who know me, that really should come as no surprise. I'm always in some form of argument. Hardly a day goes by where i'm not in one.
However I started getting rather annoyed at the person I was arguing with. They were taking the weakest parts of my argument, and attacking them as best they could, while ignoring all the strongest parts.
It was annoying. How am I meant to show them I'm right if all there here for is to prove me wrong.
Then I realised. Hey, This is me. I do this when I argue.
First of all I want to appologise to those whose arguments I have treated this way. Yeah It's a great way to win the argument, but that's not what arguments should be about. It's not about winning or losing, but about a joint consideration of two sides of a case to allow both sides to re-evaluate their position.
So if I have been doing this to you, I appologise. This is something I plan to work on in the future, so If you catch me doing it, please feel free to call me out on it. I predict that for the next little wile at least I will still be doing it a lot.
I guess there are times when it's not inappropriate, the non-serious arguments I take so much fun in (Like timewarping grenades, and the normality of strangeness) But when I'm having a serious discussion (read argument), I hope I can control this, and I charge you to help me.
Thanks
However I started getting rather annoyed at the person I was arguing with. They were taking the weakest parts of my argument, and attacking them as best they could, while ignoring all the strongest parts.
It was annoying. How am I meant to show them I'm right if all there here for is to prove me wrong.
Then I realised. Hey, This is me. I do this when I argue.
First of all I want to appologise to those whose arguments I have treated this way. Yeah It's a great way to win the argument, but that's not what arguments should be about. It's not about winning or losing, but about a joint consideration of two sides of a case to allow both sides to re-evaluate their position.
So if I have been doing this to you, I appologise. This is something I plan to work on in the future, so If you catch me doing it, please feel free to call me out on it. I predict that for the next little wile at least I will still be doing it a lot.
I guess there are times when it's not inappropriate, the non-serious arguments I take so much fun in (Like timewarping grenades, and the normality of strangeness) But when I'm having a serious discussion (read argument), I hope I can control this, and I charge you to help me.
Thanks
# posted by ChinDoGu @ 18:49 
Comments:
<< Home
Firstly, I think you are opening yourself to misinterepation. Just to clarify, "while ignoring all the strongest parts" is a very significant part of this, yes?
Secondly, I agree that arguments /should/ be about the consideration of the other points of view, and possibly about the re-evaluation of your own position, but at the same time, this is an idealised view of arguments. All too often arguments are just two (or more) people waiting for their turn to talk (optionally: loudly).
Secondly, you have a very good point, and I think many of us (if not all of us) have resorted to this kind of argueing from time to time. Usually it's caused by a blatent misunderstanding of a point being made (like the falibility of Jesus), or the desperate graspings of someone who's seeing their other points going up in flames. Regardless of the reason, in a serious discussion/argument it's the strongest part that should be kept as the focus. If this is dependant on other weaker aspects, and undermining them results in the collapse of the main point, then it's appropriate to contest them.
If at the end of the day you haven't managed to challange the oppositions strongest point, then you've probably wasted your time and breath, although sometimes you may have given them a seed for something more later, but more often than not it's the former.
So yes, if I catch you sniping at weaker points without good justification, I'll call you on it, in return, call me on the same.
Secondly, I agree that arguments /should/ be about the consideration of the other points of view, and possibly about the re-evaluation of your own position, but at the same time, this is an idealised view of arguments. All too often arguments are just two (or more) people waiting for their turn to talk (optionally: loudly).
Secondly, you have a very good point, and I think many of us (if not all of us) have resorted to this kind of argueing from time to time. Usually it's caused by a blatent misunderstanding of a point being made (like the falibility of Jesus), or the desperate graspings of someone who's seeing their other points going up in flames. Regardless of the reason, in a serious discussion/argument it's the strongest part that should be kept as the focus. If this is dependant on other weaker aspects, and undermining them results in the collapse of the main point, then it's appropriate to contest them.
If at the end of the day you haven't managed to challange the oppositions strongest point, then you've probably wasted your time and breath, although sometimes you may have given them a seed for something more later, but more often than not it's the former.
So yes, if I catch you sniping at weaker points without good justification, I'll call you on it, in return, call me on the same.
# posted by 
: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:02:00 pm
: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:02:00 pm
It is normal to have argumentative discussions every now and then. I find it as a healthy interaction. Plus , it helps people realize their flaws and recognize that they not winners in all occasions.
Post a Comment
# posted by : Friday, November 25, 2005 12:47:00 pm
: Friday, November 25, 2005 12:47:00 pm << Home
