Discussion to me is: Everyone giving his input in a subject, and trying to come out with the correct answer
Arguing : a debate, each side of the argument wants to prove himself correct by presenting facts.
You can differentiate one of the other like this:
1)Discussions are enjoyed by all those who are involved and the atmosphere is calm
2)Arguments makes everyone upset, even those who are not involved, and usually the atmosphere is intense.
I am not sure what was going between you guys, but it is nice to see how informed are the members of this forum.
You sir have never been on a debate team. There's a thin line between arguing and debates but if you are arguing so someone else can find the answer who is not involved thats a debate. At least thats what it was in high school.
EDIT: added a LOL face for the benifit of LoD and any others who took my statement seriously. I was impling its always arguing no matter what when open disagreement is present.
Last edited by pepharytheworm on Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
actually if you want to define these words around the sport of 'debate', like that in highschool.
proposition: noun - the topic for which each member has an argument
argument: noun - your position and proof for that position on the proposition. My argument is against the public option in the health care because...
argue: verb - the act of supporting your argument
debate: noun - the formal competition in which you argue your argument for or against some proposition
debate: verb - as in 'to debate'... to partake in the practice or sport of debate (noun).
discussion: noun - the actual act of speaking by any or all parties.
The discourse is considered and weighed by all parties and changes the direction of the discussion. If party A makes a specific point that disproves the oppositions argument, then the discussion changes direction, and the opposition must either support his argument again, or concede defeat.
My point in my last post when I said I didn't think we were disagreeing on much (with the person I was responding to) was merely that I didn't consider this a formal debate or anything. Some informal arguing did come up through out it on small bits of information where there was minor disgreement... but in total I felt this was 'open discussion' where we just had informal speaking of our views of the topic. So thusly the semantics of these words really shouldn't be in question.
Furthermore depending the context of the discussion, the definitions of these words alter. Where arguing and debating do have a much thinner line. And argument gains this connotation of containing feeling or emotion (two children argue over who gets to play with a certain toy... very emotional). But the context of such is based on the scenario, not the word itself, hence 'context'.
Luke wrote:Except for one where I was taken into a back room behind the kitchen, but I won't get into that.
Now that sounds sanitary. Is it b/c they don't have cameras back there?
It was weird. This stripper took me by my neck tie, took me through the private sections, through the kitchen, to a close to pitch black room. I didn't see any cameras.
lordofduct wrote:actually if you want to define these words around the sport of 'debate', like that in highschool.
proposition: noun - the topic for which each member has an argument
argument: noun - your position and proof for that position on the proposition. My argument is against the public option in the health care because...
argue: verb - the act of supporting your argument
debate: noun - the formal competition in which you argue your argument for or against some proposition
debate: verb - as in 'to debate'... to partake in the practice or sport of debate (noun).
discussion: noun - the actual act of speaking by any or all parties.
The discourse is considered and weighed by all parties and changes the direction of the discussion. If party A makes a specific point that disproves the oppositions argument, then the discussion changes direction, and the opposition must either support his argument again, or concede defeat.
My point in my last post when I said I didn't think we were disagreeing on much (with the person I was responding to) was merely that I didn't consider this a formal debate or anything. Some informal arguing did come up through out it on small bits of information where there was minor disgreement... but in total I felt this was 'open discussion' where we just had informal speaking of our views of the topic. So thusly the semantics of these words really shouldn't be in question.
Furthermore depending the context of the discussion, the definitions of these words alter. Where arguing and debating do have a much thinner line. And argument gains this connotation of containing feeling or emotion (two children argue over who gets to play with a certain toy... very emotional). But the context of such is based on the scenario, not the word itself, hence 'context'.
You strike me as a man who always has to put in his two cents. I am sorry but I only take Five dollar bills. I am glad you have a dictionary I got one at good will for 50¢. I am sure you know how the Dictionary was written right? He asked a bunch of people what they thought a word meant and asked them there spelling/pronunciation. But the word arguement is in debate a lot. I am assuming its like a square & rectangle. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. So no matter what its still an arguement but not neccesarily a debate.
so you're saying that 'kingmohd's' definition is wrong because he never took a debate class, so you define it yourself. And then because I said your definition is innacurate in respect to the sport of debate or debate class... I'm wrong to clarify?
And putting my two cents in, yes, it's an open forum... that's why we come here. Is it not? I know it's why I come here, because we can have open discussions... and argue.
So as long as you want to restrict someone's definition to a specific context (say the sport of debate), you're welcome to it. But if someone responds that in your strict definition you yourself are being innacurrate in said context, oh no, that guys is just being a douche.
Good to know... I'll remember that for the future.
Note: LordOfDuct is not allowed to post in an open forum if that worm guy is posting anywhere.
I must say though, if you want to 'define' a word... where do you usually look?
lordofduct wrote:so you're saying that 'kingmohd's' definition is wrong because he never took a debate class, so you define it yourself. And then because I said your definition is innacurate in respect to the sport of debate or debate class... I'm wrong to clarify?
And putting my two cents in, yes, it's an open forum... that's why we come here. Is it not? I know it's why I come here, because we can have open discussions... and argue.
So as long as you want to restrict someone's definition to a specific context (say the sport of debate), you're welcome to it. But if someone responds that in your strict definition you yourself are being innacurrate in said context, oh no, that guys is just being a douche.
Good to know... I'll remember that for the future.
Note: LordOfDuct is not allowed to post in an open forum if that worm guy is posting anywhere.
I must say though, if you want to 'define' a word... where do you usually look?
I was making a joke not trying to prove him wrong. But please no need for whipping out a dictionary we can all do that. I just was saying no matter what a dissagreement between people continuing to dissagree even if they both agree at the end is an arguement even a debate is.
Just food for thought if you start a sentence with "actually" what are you trying to be helpful. Has anyone started a statement with "actually" towards you and you thought he was being helpful and not a jackass or smartass. Why dose saying you always like to put in your 2 cents offend you. i thought you like to say things so others say things then you store it or something like that.
note: pephary can't joke if LoD is reading his post as he might put up defintions to say you are wrong for saying what you are saying.
Oh and I am not being a douche as you put it for adding "note:" also I will edit my former post just for you adding a
I try not to define art. It seems no matter what you will be wrong to someone. So I leave it up to the artist. If a stripper thinks she's dancing and showing her body as an expression of art then it is. If the stripper thinks its not art then its not. If pine cones fall on the ground is some pattern that some one thinks is beautiful then its not art but if they capture the moment in some way drawing, song, dance, picture then it becomes art. And if you name your kid Arthur you can also call him Art.
Hahahaha, but I like the idea of an objective definition for art... it makes me feel good to try because it seems to have eluded people for such a long time. I don't think that means it can't be done, though... perhaps we can't exclusively define what art is, but we can highlight the features which make it unique and are present in all instances of "art" and highlight what is not art, but simply "beautiful" or "communication". So far it looks like art, to put it perhaps more simply than is reasonable, beautiful communication. So how about this:
