• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Do you argue to win or to lose?

You know, this got me thinking of where I am in this.
I find it hard to argue with others mostly because I can see their "side" as valid. No more or less than mine... which evolves as I learn from others perspectives.
I would opine that I am a hard headed sob but open. I read mostly to grow without the baggage of what I "eat" being good or bad. It is all bread we just gotta eat around the mold unless we wanna trip balls or get rid of some infection. The waste is just :poop:.
 
Arguing to me suggests something irrational, pontless and facile. I don’t think anybody wins arguments, one party might jubilate while the other seethes with rage until they see another chance to flog their same dead horse again only this time even more shouty and irrational.

Debating, on the other hand, suggests something orderly and rational, gentlemanly perhaps, though with a bit of room for some flair and drama. There can be a clear winner and loser and usually the latter concedes gracefully.

I can’t be fucked arguing, but I do like a robust debate and I do like to win. Interestingly today OP proved (yet again) that an arguer cannot defeat a debater - as evidenced by the fact that I am not on a temporary ban and instead am happily jubilating in his now unattended thread!
 
Atomic_Decay said:
Arguing to me suggests something irrational, pontless and facile. I don’t think anybody wins arguments, one party might jubilate while the other seethes with rage until they see another chance to flog their same dead horse again only this time even more shouty and irrational.

Debating, on the other hand, suggests something orderly and rational, gentlemanly perhaps, though with a bit of room for some flair and drama. There can be a clear winner and loser and usually the latter concedes gracefully.

I can’t be fucked arguing, but I do like a robust debate and I do like to win. Interestingly today OP proved (yet again) that an arguer cannot defeat a debater - as evidenced by the fact that I am not on a temporary ban and instead am happily jubilating in his now unattended thread!
Click to expand...
Just wanted to say, how do you win an argument? That's kind of illogical,
because both people have a different opinion, and are in most cases going to stay with their opinion.
"Winning" would mean, winning the other person over to your side of the argument.

All that said, arguing by no means should suggest that.
It actually comes from the word argumentieren/argumenter,
which is of Germano-French(we used to be one Empire as you probably know) origin.
completely different than the Latin or Greek words, solid proof you guys are German :)

Argumentieren means to make an argument/point, essentially, to argue,
means to discuss something, which is an activity we all should practice as much as possible.

But I know how "argument" was kinda twisted in your language to mean "having a fight",
so eh. English. I think it has to do with the nature of how you discuss things

1*x4c2u_zdbuPW01-z-9smIQ.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The Old French ‘arguement’ still derived from Latin. Apparently argument=quarrel in English only emerged at the turn of the 20th century, before that it was more about reasoned discussion.

Source:

argument (n.)​

early 14c., "statements and reasoning in support of a proposition or causing belief in a doubtful matter," from Old French arguement "reasoning, opinion; accusation, charge" (13c.), from Latin argumentum "a logical argument; evidence, ground, support, proof," from arguere "make clear, make known, prove" (see argue). Sense passed through "subject of contention" (1590s) to "a quarrel" (by 1911), a sense formerly attached to argumentation.
 
Atomic_Decay said:
The Old French ‘arguement’ still derived from Latin. Apparently argument=quarrel in English only emerged at the turn of the 20th century, before that it was more about reasoned discussion.

Source:

argument (n.)​

early 14c., "statements and reasoning in support of a proposition or causing belief in a doubtful matter," from Old French arguement "reasoning, opinion; accusation, charge" (13c.), from Latin argumentum "a logical argument; evidence, ground, support, proof," from arguere "make clear, make known, prove" (see argue). Sense passed through "subject of contention" (1590s) to "a quarrel" (by 1911), a sense formerly attached to argumentation.
Click to expand...
ah fuck me i didnt think of argumentum

I had dissere in my head and was like "yeah it's dissere, what else?"
Riiight argumentum, but that does mean "object" or "story", or "evidence", not argument.
oh you wrote that too, whoops not gonna delete it now
 
I avoid arguing (in real life) because I have a really short fuse, and generally take things to the next level. Now, I don't mind debating things...unless the topics are politics or religion.

Over the last few years, I have learned to control the psycho within...UNLESS someone cuts in front of me while I'm driving. I have a Chevy truck, and when someone in a tiny car suddenly cuts me off... I get super enraged because if I slammed into them, they'd be roadkill. And you're automatically at fault when you hit someone from behind (in California at least).
 
I tend to just avoid arguing at all costs unless I have to, in real life at least (ignoring covid threads, that's more trying to impart logic and reason).

I have some trauma from childhood due to an extremely argumentative dysfunctional family, I didn't need an alarm clock, I woke up to screaming literally every day. Also just my demeanor in general. In INFP, I just want everyone to be happy.
 
I guess debating is an exercise and thus has winning as the end goal. I cannot honestly say that i argue to lose so i can learn more, and i would be very skeptical towards anyone making such claims. The learning i do in debates comes primarily from practice in sharpening my own arguments, not from getting taught by my opponents. It has been a welcome side effect at times, though. I tend to be very aware of this and adjust my level of confidence accordingly. In some topics i have seen everything and made up my mind. In others i am a bit of a devil's advocate and then it can happen that an opponent gives me new knowledge. These do tend to be the less important topics in my mind...

Anyway, i also think debating can be a distraction from actual winning in life. I think i'm afraid of winning and having power. I think debates make me feel like a proud underdog, who could easily win if winning would ever begin to make any sense. It's like my alternate universe where logic wins. An ideal universe, a dream of jumping straight to divine endgame.

This is probably a common thing.
 
Last edited:
I argue to gain knowledge/insights, and to try to produce cohorent and logical constructs and to try to make others make such constructs...

Often I dont even consider right or wrong even being possible since most things - if not all - can be looked at from so many different point of views that I often find it difficult to have a strong and well defined standpoint, however I do take standing points since without falsification would not be possible ergo neither would gaining knowledge be...

Of course there is joy to be found in being intellectually superior, definitely since I am someone living the vita contemplativa and not having any real connection with the vita activa... (referring to the cultural philosopher Hanna Arendt)
 
Antiprosynthesis said:
That doesnt matter, since all I care about is gaining knowledge, however like I added later on, its always pleasant to feel intellectually superior...
Click to expand...
It definitely matters to me.

I see the gain of being the inferior, as superior, if mental growth is the end goal.

I need to lose an argument to actually learn anything new.

Regards
DL
 
I fully agree, but my statement was made considering my rather excessive ego, but of course that is what I meant with the importance of falsification for gaining knowledge (should this be not known to everyone, falsification is Poppers principle of the knowledge gained out of being proven wrong).

Also I often take on an opposite point of view than which one is expressed by someone - even if I suspect that person to be correct - not just to be annoying (and I did this from a very young age on), cause I found it interesting what information could be gained by doing so as well I found it interesting to manufacture logical constructs for that opposing point of.view cause this often is very well possible and shows not all is that black/white as well as forcing the other to more intensly manufacture logical constructs for his/hers point of view; later on I actually learned this is called 'the scientific method', if scientists want to prove something they will start by disproving the opposite as this actually leads to superior knowledge... Which all shows similarities with the principle of falsification...

Maybe this seems as a leap but to me this seems related, is the paradigm shift as expressed by Kuhn, where a new theory can replace an older theory if and only if this new theory a) explains all the things the old theory explained just as well and b) if the new theory explains and predicts a set of new notions as well while at the same time changing our view of these things... This is very interesting as it shows specific demands for being considered able to replace that former theory (as the correlation with falsification is obvious to me, I want to add that this is not actually falsification since the old theory is not considered wrong now but rather incomplete...).
 
December Flower said:
that's quite irrelevant isn't it?

since both participants of the argument will have their own subjective impression of whether they won or lost, the entire concept lacks merit
Click to expand...
I dont consider that to be what makes it irrelevant, but rather the fact that expressing improving to what its about rendering the outcome 'winning or losing' by definition irrelevant...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top