Which side of an argument do you side with?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Which side of an argument do you side with?

      This is a totally generic question. It's not about any specific argument. But, looking at my own current signature, with Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny arguing over "Wabbit Season", it got me thinking how people have different approaches to an argument.

      So, this is my attempt to start a discussion about arguing. Since it's not about a specific argument, there's no real reason to let it get out of hand, right? So, chime in and talk about how you approach others in discussion or how you perceive others' arguments. What approaches do you think are more effective? When does a discussion become an argument and when does that become a fight?

      Now, this isn't an attempt to get into argument styles based on writing exercises from a speech or grammar point of view. It's just for fun and let's see where it goes. So keep it light. Soapbox speeches and long-winded lessons are not needed here (believe me, many here are quite familiar with my own lengthy and sometimes boring tomes).

      Have fun and, remember, no fighting!
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Interesting topic:)

      My 2 cents:

      I usually side with the logical side of the argument. Or at least, what I percieve as logical, of course. In rare instances, when 'my side' is utterly stupid (assuming a group discussion) I tend to become devils advocate. In my style, I tend to wander off in what ifs - something that is not everyones cup of English drink. Partly depends how 'hard' the argument is for me to argue. If its too easy, I just smile and wave at a given point, especially if the other person fails to see the clear cut logic.

      Arguing based on emotions is an almost completely undiscovered terrain for me. I try to learn to nowadays, but it will never come easy (INTP, you know;) ).
    • My wife complains that I'm a "value-based arguer" (though she wouldn't know to use that phrase).

      I was on a college debate team and was the lead in a competition in which our side would argue for the existence of [a] God on the first day of the competition. On the second day, the opposing side would argue against the existence of [a] God.

      After the first day's debate we were determined to have won the debate (the opposing side didn't contradict our arguments well enough to score more points than us). On the second day, the leader of the opposing argument was absent so I filled-in for him...arguing against the argument I had led the previous day.

      We won that day's debate. I had led both sides of an issue and won opposing arguments. My "reward" was an internship for the New York State Unified Court System and, eventually, became a certified, court-appointed mediator.

      The point of telling this is to explain how I tend to approach issues. There's rarely a right or wrong side but, rather, various shades of gray that represent areas of possible compromise and resolution. When I pick a "side" it's usually because, in balance of all the factors involved, one side best represents most of what I believe represents my values.
    • I Patton wrote:

      I'm a "value-based arguer"
      I presume this means that you are arguing based on moral values. I find this type of argument to be very effective at rallying opinions to your side. Unfortunately, it's also very effective at rallying others to an opposing position. Really, I believe moral arguments have the greatest potential to divide and cause friction. Some of America's biggest long-standing national and social debates are morality-based.

      Perfect examples are the debates over abortion, marijuana legalization, illegal immigrants status, state's rights vs. federalism, environmentalism, sexual preferences, proactive defensive wars, euthanasia, gun rights, freedom of speech, political correctness, freedom of religion, and some new ones like the concepts of micro-aggression, freedom from speech, and freedom from religion.

      I Patton wrote:

      I had led both sides of an issue and won opposing arguments. My "reward" was an internship for the New York State Unified Court System and, eventually, became a certified, court-appointed mediator.
      I have to admit, I like playing Devil's advocate for arguments. This seems like it would make one into a more effective debater because it helps them to learn about all sides of an issue thus giving them the ability to formulate a more effective argument against the opposition.

      I Patton wrote:

      There's rarely a right or wrong side but, rather, various shades of gray that represent areas of possible compromise and resolution. When I pick a "side" it's usually because, in balance of all the factors involved, one side best represents most of what I believe represents my values.
      I find that this seems to be very true for many non-morality-based arguments, if not most. But it also seems like many simplistic and/or object-based arguments tend to devolve into a morality-based argument, anyway. Usually, that is because once a person has exhausted their logical approach, if they can't accept that they've been bested, sometimes they will resort to either a strawman argument or other poor argumentative type. But if that fails or if they are incapable of even formulating those kinds of arguments, their passion drives them to make a purely-emotional-based argument that attempts to apply morality to a concept that really has no bearing on morality.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical,

      No, I don't mean "moral values".

      A few examples of what I value:
      - I value old things and will argue for their restoration and preservation.
      - I value being allowed to do what I want as long as it doesn't adversely impact anyone else (a difficult thing to ensure)
      - I value things that make sense rather than just going along with what's currently popular
      - I value things that are unique, rare, or different
      As you can see, there's not much "morality" going on here.


      "There is not much difference between morals and values but both are correlated to each other. Morals are formed from the inborn values.
      1. Morals are generally taught by the society to the individual whereas values come from within.
      2. Morals act as a motivation for leading a good life while values can be called as an intuition.
      3. Morals are related to ones religion, business or politics whereas values are personal fundamental beliefs or principles.
      4. Morals are deep seated whereas values keep on changing with time and needs."


      Read more: Difference Between Morals and Values | Difference Between differencebetween.net/miscella…and-values/#ixzz4sZ8BMI7I

      The other assumption I meant to correct in my post is that an issue having just two "sides" is overly simplistic and rarely accurate. I think every CoW player could be polled, on any of the examples you gave, and we'd come up with dozens of different opinions about each one. Forcing there to be only a "for" or "against" is rarely accurate. One must consider "under what circumstances or to what degree" (values) for each issue and each variety of circumstance or degree would be its own "side".
    • I Patton wrote:

      My wife complains that I'm a "value-based arguer" (though she wouldn't know to use that phrase).

      I was on a college debate team and was the lead in a competition in which our side would argue for the existence of [a] God on the first day of the competition. On the second day, the opposing side would argue against the existence of [a] God.

      After the first day's debate we were determined to have won the debate (the opposing side didn't contradict our arguments well enough to score more points than us). On the second day, the leader of the opposing argument was absent so I filled-in for him...arguing against the argument I had led the previous day.

      We won that day's debate. I had led both sides of an issue and won opposing arguments. My "reward" was an internship for the New York State Unified Court System and, eventually, became a certified, court-appointed mediator.

      The point of telling this is to explain how I tend to approach issues. There's rarely a right or wrong side but, rather, various shades of gray that represent areas of possible compromise and resolution. When I pick a "side" it's usually because, in balance of all the factors involved, one side best represents most of what I believe represents my values.
      Cool story:). I once read...in a game no less, the 19 years old game of Final Fantasy 8...there is no right or wrong, just different viewpoints. Though I do have a strong morale value (thanks I Patton!),given (assumed) right and wrong, I do understand at a meta level that they are mý right and wrongs. I dont mind being proven wrong - as long as the arguments make sense. I see it as a learning exercise. Partly depends hów you prove me wrong. The French have a saying 'Que ce le ton a fait de la musique' meaning...its the tone of voice that does it. Sorry if my grammar is hugely wrong, I speak French only at the most basic level.

      That said, I also believe there are some universal goods and bads, from humanities standpoint. And its probably good (bad?;)) we have them (thou shall not kill etc)

      The post was edited 1 time, last by miech ().

    • Diabolical wrote:

      Perfect examples are the debates over abortion, marijuana legalization, illegal immigrants status, state's rights vs. federalism, environmentalism, sexual preferences, proactive defensive wars, euthanasia, gun rights, freedom of speech, political correctness, freedom of religion, and some new ones like the concepts of micro-aggression, freedom from speech, and freedom from religion.
      Ah, thats what you call 'negative freedom' from a scientific and language point of view. Ie: positive freedom is freedom 'to do' something. Negative freedom is 'free of' something.

      Mind you, I find this 'negativity' as positive as being tested negative for AIDS:).

      Just my random miechipedia attribution to this:).
    • I side with the minority unless it severely conflicts with my beliefs(like a banning of maple syrup). It is great fun to just defy the rest of the the people in the room and to even contradict them. My own view is usually suppressed during debates, since it takes away from the amusement of the situation. Since I am on the minority, I need to actually think and develop a new perspective, creating challenges for me that improves my ability to adapt.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
    • Clearly, you've never met an INTJ. For people like me (being an INTJ), life is an argument. We literally go from one day to the next critiquing and arguing about anything and everything. In fact, if we don't argue with you, it just means that we consider your ideas so below par as to not even worth the merit of consideration. At least, if you are argued with, we are, in essence, saying, "I might not like your idea, but it's worth something so let's pick it apart and build it back up as something new and better."

      Basically, in a way, me arguing with someone is like giving a compliment. That is how you can know that I respect you.

      Learn more about INTJ's. We really make the world a better place...by telling everyone how sucky it all is.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • miech wrote:

      I once read...in a game no less, the 19 years old game of Final Fantasy 8...there is no right or wrong, just different viewpoints.
      I've been tasked many times to "mediate" in arguments. What I've always held in my mind is that there are 3 sides to a story. His side, the other guy's side AND the truth. The truth is somewhere in between, it might be closer to one guy than the other but only occassionally is it right on top of one guy's side.

      As u said you have to consider the different viewpoints.
    • Diabolical wrote:

      Clearly, you've never met an INTJ. For people like me (being an INTJ), life is an argument. We literally go from one day to the next critiquing and arguing about anything and everything. In fact, if we don't argue with you, it just means that we consider your ideas so below par as to not even worth the merit of consideration. At least, if you are argued with, we are, in essence, saying, "I might not like your idea, but it's worth something so let's pick it apart and build it back up as something new and better."

      Basically, in a way, me arguing with someone is like giving a compliment. That is how you can know that I respect you.

      Learn more about INTJ's. We really make the world a better place...by telling everyone how sucky it all is.
      You sure you arent an ENTP?;)

      @Clanpred'

      Very understandable. There is only one problem. What if...1 of the 2 argu-ers (how the f do I do this language wise??) is right from a neutral standpoint?

      That said, I understand what you mean. Personally I tend to have a basic outlook on an argument. Might even feverishly defend it, but if arguments against my initial viewpoints are too strong (and logical/sensible), I happily change sides, deducing my initial standpoint was...well...wrong:D
    • Diabolical wrote:

      We literally go from one day to the next critiquing and arguing about anything and everything
      I am glad you told us this, we never would have guessed. Lol
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • miech wrote:

      Very understandable. There is only one problem. What if...1 of the 2 argu-ers (how the f do I do this language wise??) is right from a neutral standpoint?

      That said, I understand what you mean. Personally I tend to have a basic outlook on an argument. Might even feverishly defend it, but if arguments against my initial viewpoints are too strong (and logical/sensible), I happily change sides, deducing my initial standpoint was...well...wrong:D
      The problem with an up-front assumption in an argument is that all sides approach with the belief that they are right. So being on one side or another...or "neutral" isn't the point. An argument is done sometimes just for the sake of the argument, itself. That's what it's like for an INTJ. People like me actually enjoy arguing. We don't do it always...and we don't pick fights for fun. But we are naturally outspoken if we see something that we don't agree with. And we tend to interject where an opposing opinion isn't necessarily welcome....and that's where the friction comes into play.

      It is believed that people tend to stick to their guns in an argument, even if they're clearly proven wrong, out of instinct to protect their position, in fact, especially if they're proven wrong, they will only fight harder for their position. Ironically, whereas INTJ's are inherently argumentative, we are surprisingly able to accept our own inaccuracies and adopt an opposing opinion when a logical argument against our original position has been successfully proffered. An INTJ won't waste time defending an undefendable position. If we are in the wrong, and you prove us wrong, we will accept that and move on....and that acceptance is also surprisingly swift.

      But, that doesn't mean that proving us wrong is easy. If you make a sensible, logical, and calculated argument against our position, even if we have a good reason to be right, we will either accept your position as correct or we'll accept your presentation as well-constructed and you'll have earned our respect ... my respect ... for the attempt. Sometimes, just a well-done attempt is good enough for us to drop an issue....in order to keep the peace.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical wrote:

      miech wrote:

      Very understandable. There is only one problem. What if...1 of the 2 argu-ers (how the f do I do this language wise??) is right from a neutral standpoint?

      That said, I understand what you mean. Personally I tend to have a basic outlook on an argument. Might even feverishly defend it, but if arguments against my initial viewpoints are too strong (and logical/sensible), I happily change sides, deducing my initial standpoint was...well...wrong:D
      The problem with an up-front assumption in an argument is that all sides approach with the belief that they are right. So being on one side or another...or "neutral" isn't the point. An argument is done sometimes just for the sake of the argument, itself. That's what it's like for an INTJ. People like me actually enjoy arguing. We don't do it always...and we don't pick fights for fun. But we are naturally outspoken if we see something that we don't agree with. And we tend to interject where an opposing opinion isn't necessarily welcome....and that's where the friction comes into play.
      It is believed that people tend to stick to their guns in an argument, even if they're clearly proven wrong, out of instinct to protect their position, in fact, especially if they're proven wrong, they will only fight harder for their position. Ironically, whereas INTJ's are inherently argumentative, we are surprisingly able to accept our own inaccuracies and adopt an opposing opinion when a logical argument against our original position has been successfully proffered. An INTJ won't waste time defending an undefendable position. If we are in the wrong, and you prove us wrong, we will accept that and move on....and that acceptance is also surprisingly swift.

      But, that doesn't mean that proving us wrong is easy. If you make a sensible, logical, and calculated argument against our position, even if we have a good reason to be right, we will either accept your position as correct or we'll accept your presentation as well-constructed and you'll have earned our respect ... my respect ... for the attempt. Sometimes, just a well-done attempt is good enough for us to drop an issue....in order to keep the peace.
      You share that with ENTPs, they are 'the worst.' Its the E in them that does it. They literally feed off human energy (fortunately they give a lot back too!). But I think they are indeed closely followed by INTJs, with a bit of a distance the INTP on a respectable 3rd spot. The main difference between INTP/INTJ is that the INTP seeks truth (in an almost holistic way), while the INTJ seeks to be right (to show expertise). As INTP I love being right, but I love more to understand, even if it (initially) hurts my feelings (good god...Im...wrong? no! impossible!). That 'eureka' moment is just so sweet:D

      Ah, your second paragraph. Its generally that way for most people. But we NTs are the 'weirdest' in the the eyes of 90% of the population.

      If I notice Im losing an argument, but havent quite given up...just yet. I tend to do a 'tactical withdrawal'. Or perhaps thats just the Diplomat in me (even though my F isnt particularly strong). I do see a similarity that I change my viewpoint if logic dictates it (and my own is apparently incorrect). Yet it will very rarely be 180 degrees. Because if I argue, I at least have that basic generalistic premise. Think politics as an example. As a classical liberal, I cóuld be swayed to adopt a conservative approach, but never a communist one. Well, almost never. It could be coincidence on any random topic I share the views with a communist. Just my road to the solution is likely different.
    • In a way, arguing is for me ultimately seeking common ground, not conflict. The world isnt black and white. Im not talking about mundane 'well that grass sure is green, isnt it?' But the more interesting topics (pick any random nerd, mechanic, science, history etc topic for me) that isnt defined in black and white answers. I sometimes are taken aback a bit if somebody argues 'strongly' (and meaning it, instead of a sarcastic/witty/exaggerating undertone). In the past I countered that with equal artillery fire. I wisened up in regard to that. Simply say 'you are right' and walk away (your mind still thinks otherwise).

      Expression: Do not argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and club you to death with experience.
    • miech wrote:

      Ah, your second paragraph. Its generally that way for most people. But we NTs are the 'weirdest' in the the eyes of 90% of the population.
      That's for sure.

      miech wrote:

      As a classical liberal, I cóuld be swayed to adopt a conservative approach, but never a communist one. Well, almost never.
      And, to me, Communists are more liberal (and thus "leftist") than a "classic" liberal. Now, that may be the difference between my American understanding of liberalism and your European understanding of liberalism. I would love to discuss with you, sometime, on the fallacies of the whole "left vs. right" dichotomy of politics and ideological opinions.

      But, for me, to give a little "heads up" on that discussion, I'd say that it's an argument that is either planar (flat), or three dimensional (globular). A linear explanation of opinions only works for individual ideas and/or concepts (your black/white ideas...and the greys in-between). But when you have multi-faceted ideas that mix ideologies with each other, you can't just say "black or white", or "up or down", or even "inside and out". Multiple ideas (that mix) create vectors or regions within an ideological grid and each portion that intersects with another portion (be they vectors, areas, or even "masses") would change the representative nature of both portions such that they work together in tandem...and, often, in a new direction (vector) or new plane (planar) or new mass (globular).

      And, just because you mentioned Communism, I would suggest that, on a pseudo-vector/planar view, liberalism may be to one side and conservatism to the opposite side, but Communism would not necessarily be near to either side, nor near to the middle, but it would be off in a tangential direction away from the line that connects the other two positions. Likewise, libertarianism, a classically American alternative idea that embraces some ideals that are very "liberal" and some ideals that are very "conservative" but can't really be called either, it is an ideological vector that also goes off in a tangential direction...but, it would not go off in a direction near to that of Communism....nor towards Fascism, or Oligarchism, or true Democracy, or Socialism, or pure Totalitarianism, or Feudalism, or Theocracy, or Imperialism, etc. and etc...ad infinitum. In fact, it can fairly be said that each of these political systems has not that much in common with the others. Each has it's own idiosyncrasies. And everyone favors a slightly different blend of each.

      For example, in America, we have two main political parties, which represent two different styles of government, representative republicanism and democracy. Our government incorporates both ideals in a blend that has been working for a long time as-is. However, proponents of the Democratic party have tried for years to make our nation more democratic while our Republican party has tried to make our nation more representative (though less so, in effort than their opponents). Populists (not a party) have often tried to stay out of the discussion, yet they represent a third of the voting stock of citizenry. So, in a way, it could be said that we have a three-party system (the Libertarian party is a tiny minority, but they are the third largest "official" party at this time).

      miech wrote:

      Expression: Do not argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and club you to death with experience.
      That last part....I've not heard it with the rest of that expression. Is that, by any chance, a Dutch version of this saying?

      You know, there is a similar saying, "You can't win an argument with a fool." I just wish I knew why everyone's always saying that around me. ;)

      Here's another proverb, something for morning people to think about....
      "If anyone loudly blesses their neighbor early in the morning, it will be taken as a curse." (Proverbs 27:14, NIV)

      ....think about it. ||
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3