Do you have to win every argument?

apply-cold-water-to-burned-area-4414843.png
 
Jeeves said:
Wait a minute! Argument or debate?
And argument is personal; there is something you want and the other person wants something different, or there is blame to apportion, or there is a matter of some importance to decide. You want to win it, because the outcome matters.
In many situations, the argument is with a significant person in your life, who also matters, as does your relationship with that person. So it behooves you to listen and give due consideration to their side, give them the benefit of doubt, not dismiss them or their case, and never call them dishonest (even if you suspect that they are). They may persuade you that their plan is better, that you would be happier with the outcome if you did it their way; that you are partly responsible for what went wrong - and, in any case, you need to know how much damage winning would do to the relationship, and you might be able to reach a fair compromise.
On the other hand, an argument with someone who is a rival, ill-wisher or enemy can be quite serious and you may have something of value to lose. In that case, you are more motivated to win than to concede or compromise.

A debate is a staged event, like a sport, and the objective is to win. Fairly, by the rules.
Click to expand...

I have always understood debate to be purely logical without emotions. Arguments, I would say, are debates disturbed by emotions, but if we do not know that the opponent is allowing his or her emotions to influence him or her, then I find it safe to use the words interchangeably
 
akoreamerican said:
I have always understood debate to be purely logical without emotions. Arguments, I would say, are debates disturbed by emotions, but if we do not know that the opponent is allowing his or her emotions to influence him or her, then I find it safe to use the words interchangeably
Click to expand...

Reason is though the essence of logic .

It is the information that governs reason and hence leads to logic .

Do you have to win every argument no .
 
akoreamerican said:
I have always understood debate to be purely logical without emotions.
Click to expand...
In theory. But it's not really about logic itself, but about the the effective application of logic to a given subject-matter. It's a contest; the objective is to win points (or trophies, or elections), so it's impossible to keep emotion completely out of a debate. You're supposed to do your best, not because you're passionate about the specific content, but because you want to win.

Arguments, I would say, are debates disturbed by emotions, but if we do not know that the opponent is allowing his or her emotions to influence him or her, then I find it safe to use the words interchangeably
Click to expand...
Without emotion, there is no argument. If you don't care about the outcome, you don't waste energy on arguing. You do know that the same is true of your opponent. You each want something different - how badly you want it may be unequal, but wanting is a given. An argument is a verbal struggle to get your own way.
This means that it's possible for there to be a winner and a loser, just as in a debate (only it matters more) but it's also possible for neither or both parties to win: you can reach an impasse or a compromise, or turn to a neutral third party for arbitration, or agree to on a hitherto unconsidered alternative solution.
 
I never seek to win an argument, just be heard. And, at least, understood. It's refreshing when you can have a heated debate, and remain civil. Learning something along the way is always a plus. ;)
 
wegs said:
I never seek to win an argument, just be heard. And, at least, understood. It's refreshing when you can have a heated debate, and remain civil. Learning something along the way is always a plus. ;)
Click to expand...
wb, Wegs....:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top