The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
The purpose of arguing by subbywan 2004-01-13 11:49:09
I've been meaning to write something up about this for a while, but haven't gotten around to it until now and even this is going to be abbreviated.

Just what is the purpose of argument?

Many people seem to think that it's to win. I suppose that's a natural tendency, but is it the real purpose of argument?

Personally, while I certainly *like* to win arguments, I don't argue with the aim of "can I beat my opponent"? I'll often argue points that I do not personally agree with because I have questions about it, or I have something I want clarified. I don't think it's necessary to say "while I don't personally believe this, what about ... ?" every time you engage in debate.

For me, argument is about refining my own position. One of my favourite quotes is "Stupid people surround themselves with smart people. Smart people surround themselves with smart people who disagree with them." I fail to see the purpose of surrounding yourself with people who always agree with you. You don't learn anything new, and you never change your perspsective, because you never have to. Actually, that could be a whole discussion by itself: "if you're never told/taught that you can't do something, is it wrong/evil to do that?"

I argue because I want to see the weakness in *my* views. It doesn't mean that I'm going to stop believing them because someone disagrees with me, but it doesn't mean that i'm out to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

Sorry if that seems pigheaded, but I'm out to argue for *myself*. Other people are necessary to provide new and different view points, not to try and convert.
[ Reply ]
  Can't pass parameters without an argument ;-) (n/t) by kahuana2004-01-13 11:53:42
  I'm Sorry but I disagree with you there. by McGowan2004-01-13 11:54:40
  If you ever admitted error in your basic premises, by adiplomat2004-01-13 11:55:20
    which is fair enough. by subbywan2004-01-13 12:07:50
      Which support MY argument: by LurkerMo2004-01-13 12:13:54
      Then you are a leech. by Naruki2004-01-13 12:30:20
        Perhaps by subbywan2004-01-13 12:34:26
          That makes me think of Capt. X's question by Naruki2004-01-13 12:58:13
            Which is fair enough (n/t) by subbywan2004-01-13 13:02:35
      Arguing is just bickering. What I would suggest by webishop2004-01-13 12:47:09
        I would suggest that you check a dictionary. by BloodyViking2004-01-13 12:53:21
          Not with subby (n/t) by webishop2004-01-13 14:55:38
            Anything is possible with me :) (n/t) by subbywan2004-01-13 15:05:13
              Even a quadruple backflip off a sidewalk by Naruki2004-01-13 15:15:13
                Possible, but *highly* improbable :) (n/t) by subbywan2004-01-13 15:19:36
        But again, by subbywan2004-01-13 13:01:04
          You just never know where insight and that by NOLAWitch2004-01-13 13:14:17
            Hmmm .. point .. by subbywan2004-01-13 13:17:08
            As have I, in at least one issue we have in common by adiplomat2004-01-13 13:35:32
              I haven't. by Naruki2004-01-13 13:38:37
                I haven't either. by BloodyViking2004-01-13 13:45:32
                lol (nt) by gibuu2004-01-13 13:46:30
                Haven't you BEEN a newt already? (n/t) by adiplomat2004-01-13 13:51:32
              I feel the same way about some of you Christians. by NOLAWitch2004-01-13 13:45:08
                THAT, my dear NOLA, was the "issue in common" by adiplomat2004-01-13 13:49:40
      "No-one ever wins an arguement" by swisscheese2004-01-13 13:17:54
        You will never win one with That attitude. by BloodyViking2004-01-13 13:24:04
          I don't want to win -- I want to persuade ... by swisscheese2004-01-13 13:38:26
            Isn't that the same thing? by BloodyViking2004-01-13 13:52:15
              I argue to win. by Naruki2004-01-13 13:56:35
        I would go further and say by PathOGene2004-01-13 13:37:01
          I'd say .. "sentient" (n/t) by swisscheese2004-01-13 13:40:52
          Perhaps, but only if by BloodyViking2004-01-13 13:41:25
            The discussion, by PathOGene2004-01-13 13:54:02
        If you are arguing to win by gibuu2004-01-13 13:49:02
          GB Shaw quote: apples vs ideas by swisscheese2004-01-13 13:56:31
          Even if it is agreeing by PathOGene2004-01-13 13:57:44
            I usually LART people who do that. by Naruki2004-01-13 14:23:04
              why? (nt) by gibuu2004-01-13 14:24:46
                I would assume it's obvious. by Naruki2004-01-13 14:26:58
                  Oh, bull by tigermouse2004-01-13 14:57:58
                A slightly more helpful response: by BloodyViking2004-01-13 14:33:11
                  You assume that gibuu's monosyllabic by Naruki2004-01-13 14:39:16
                    Well, my response was slightly more helpful by BloodyViking2004-01-13 14:46:06
                      Yes... by Naruki2004-01-13 14:53:00
                        It is the same question. by BloodyViking2004-01-13 15:19:44
                          Nope. by Naruki2004-01-13 15:25:03
                            I didn't. by BloodyViking2004-01-13 15:32:03
                    Why by gibuu2004-01-13 14:50:44
                      insert "or" between by gibuu2004-01-13 14:52:00
                      LART by BloodyViking2006-11-19 12:55:59
                        thanks :) by gibuu2004-01-13 15:00:46
                      It doesn't mean laugh. by Naruki2004-01-13 15:03:37
                        thanks again by gibuu2004-01-13 15:11:39
                          I can do that before arguing, though. by Naruki2004-01-13 15:23:06
                            ok by gibuu2004-01-13 15:52:53
                              I'm pretty sure that's not what it means. by Naruki2004-01-13 17:09:45
                                **yawns at Naruki** **agrees to disagree by adiplomat2004-01-13 20:13:36
              To which you are entitled. (n/t) by PathOGene2004-01-13 14:32:02
                Really? by Naruki2004-01-13 14:33:23
                  Isn't it obvious? by BloodyViking2004-01-13 14:35:00
                  The Constitution! :) (n/t) by subbywan2004-01-13 14:37:24
                    Old Ironsides? by Naruki2004-01-13 14:39:47
                      it's got (or had) the biggest gun, you nit! ;P (n/t) by subbywan2004-01-13 14:41:55
                        It's not the size that matters... by Naruki2004-01-13 14:51:00
                          Damn manual targetting! (n/t) by subbywan2004-01-13 14:51:31
              Sometimes one set of facts will support more than by swisscheese2004-01-13 15:00:02
                Um... so? by Naruki2004-01-13 15:05:25
          There is that absolute by BloodyViking2004-01-13 13:59:10
  *commits random act of force on subbywan* by Naruki2004-01-13 12:07:04
    It's also a case of by subbywan2004-01-13 12:18:15
      There are usually reasons why they by Naruki2004-01-13 12:29:02
        But sometimes you *have* to reinterpret by subbywan2004-01-13 12:36:49
          Nope. by Naruki2004-01-13 12:52:25
            Fair enough. by subbywan2004-01-13 12:56:17
          No, you have to Clarify, not reinterpret. by BloodyViking2004-01-13 12:56:33
            Agreed, it does imply more by subbywan2004-01-13 13:02:08
              They may have to restate by BloodyViking2004-01-13 13:05:49
                Granted. (n/t) by subbywan2004-01-13 13:08:00
  What makes you think there is any one reason? by BloodyViking2004-01-13 12:08:49
    Some people just get off on... by swisscheese2004-01-13 13:22:18
      Like trolls. by BloodyViking2004-01-13 13:30:19
        Yep by PathOGene2004-01-13 13:46:17
  The purpose of arguing is to piss people off. by dire_lobo2006-11-19 12:55:59
    Is not! by Naruki2004-01-13 12:19:33
      And to pick a semantic nit by tigermouse2004-01-13 12:25:29
        I highly doubt that you can pass debates by Naruki2004-01-13 12:32:14
          Oh, pooh on you. by tigermouse2004-01-13 12:43:04
            You on me? I don't think so! by Naruki2004-01-13 12:50:24
              Now you're just being hard-headed. by tigermouse2004-01-13 13:17:15
                You sure do have a lot of the same nit. by Naruki2004-01-13 13:38:03
                  Oh, I figured it was another "spurious-proof-of- by adiplomat2004-01-13 13:44:00
                  *sigh* by tigermouse2004-01-13 13:56:25
                    BZZT! ;-) by Naruki2004-01-13 14:09:58
                      My mistake was in continuing to squabble with you by tigermouse2004-01-13 14:54:38
                        If you want us to give *you* that kind of by Naruki2004-01-13 15:12:08
                          Besides which, by BloodyViking2004-01-13 15:25:11
                            Ooh, good point. by Naruki2004-01-13 15:27:09
                          I was just going by the definition order by tigermouse2004-01-13 15:49:59
        I'll pick that nit and raise you a nat by dire_lobo2004-01-13 12:39:08
          I have gnats. by tigermouse2004-01-13 12:47:36
    Yeah, that's approximately my opinion. by Nea2004-01-13 12:54:20
    According to Miriam, by subbywan2006-11-19 12:55:59
  It's all about... by kelli2172004-01-13 14:07:59
    whos a master debater? (nt) by gibuu2004-01-13 14:22:05
    The more the merrier. by Naruki2004-01-13 14:22:16
  That's why I hang out here :) (n/t) by bassplayer2004-01-13 22:37:33

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)