Do you argue more on forums than you do in your real life?

[Saphire]

Real life meaning...not a life lived on the internet.

 

[funandflirty]

I don’t argue! I’m aware that sounds ridiculously passive, but life to hard and too short to bother with negativity.

if I’m wrong I apologise and I try to be respectful to everyone. If I’m not shown the same courtesy In return that’s a reflection on the other person not me and that’s their choice .

 

[kisakye1112]

Hello funandflirty how are you today my name is Ronald

 

[Saphire]

Without a doubt, ‘thanks’ mainly to one person. However, real life arguments have grown massively during the last two years or so.

I feel for you.
I hate having arguments in real life, they play on my mind till whatever problem there is has been sorted.

I seldom do argue though, lifes too short.

 

[Saphire]

I don’t argue! I’m aware that sounds ridiculously passive, but life to hard and too short to bother with negativity.

if I’m wrong I apologise and I try to be respectful to everyone. If I’m not shown the same courtesy In return that’s a reflection on the other person not me and that’s their choice .

Not ridiculously passive at all, peaceful maybe, and there is nothing wrong with that.x

 

[Saphire]

True, but when you believe in something you have to stand by your principles. Such is life.

True.
In family especially, sometimes people have such opposing views, it can be hard to keep the peace.
I have one...just one, family member like this, the only solution is, we don't see much of each other, which is better than rowing every time we do.

 

[funandflirty]

How do you get to know people if you don't confront/compare different/opposing points of views?

Your relationships will always be either one sided (which means you nodding when someone says or does anything which you disagree with ) or shallow.

Either way, neither are healthy.

Being respectful is one thing, being passive is entirely another.

You're not all that passive tbh - I've witnessed you replying to me rather nastily just becasue I implied you and another chatter may have been the same person.
You obviously know how to fight your corner - but are you doing it for the right reasons or with the right people ?

I think not - after all, I'm nothing to you.

Maybe you should start focusing on comparing more important points (in your real life).

And that is not me being nasty btw, it's just some unbiased advice.

The thread is regarding arguments. I do not need to argue to get to know someone or to convey my thoughts.

I think if a debate/conversation/discussion becomes argumentative it’s best to pause and reflect. As I said life is too short and hard to argue or quarrel.

If people feel differently, that’s great for them - I wish them well.

Ultimately my own peace and well being means more to me than someone else’s desire to argue.

I did indeed respond to your antagonistic posting directed to me with a direct and clear message. I simply conveyed my thoughts and walked away, I have no malice or ill feeling

 

[hell2bwith76]

Then you come 'onlne' and take it out on people that disagree on what you type (lol)

Hahaaa ,somone else has also noticed the fake "pleasant " statements

 

[hell2bwith76]

You couldn't make this stuff up lol

He does though ! lol

 

[Saphire]

What peace can there be if there's no confrontation to sort the issue ?
The peace is just apparent.

Disagreements can often be sorted without confrontation or conflict.
All it takes is for both parties to listen, if agreement cant be reached, no amount of arguing will sort it.
I prefer to live a peacful life rather than an argumentative one..if that means not having everyone agree with my point of view all the time, so what?

 

[WickedPerdition]

What is an argument?

It's a confrontation, from the verb 'to confront'.

And that is not me being nasty btw, it's just some unbiased advice.

I have contested the use of this word already in another thread, but no matter where the word is used, it has an equally relevant meaning other than opposing someone's view(point), often devoid of rationale or following the correct protocol.
Here's a simplified definition:
'An argument is a statement or group of statements called premises intended to determine the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called conclusion'.

Now, if instead we apply the word, debate, or discussion, then it is often the exchanges are the result of personal experience and opinion.
Real argument requires a progression of logical steps to validate a statement, idea or theory. Not just personal opinion

By the way, I would also like to know how you can validate 'unbiased advice'.
No one's point of view can realistically be considered unbiased because it is subjective, not objective.
Hence, the Forum is mainly an exchange of personal opinions based on personal experience, and very rarely fact.

 

[SamBally]

I have contested the use of this word already in another thread

Online herbert typing yet MORE inane gibberish in a pithy attempt to impress his imaginary audience.

All people and especially herbert argue, knowingly or not, on a frequent basis. For example, here we have herbert airing his personal opinion as to the definition and or what is an explanation of a 'REAL' argument. In other words and by his own logic he is "arguing" his case. Poorly, in black and white certainties, but still "arguing" his case and despite not being in context to his own actual definition.

You are, at last, beginning to appreciate the British sense of community, spirit and humour.
Is this because these actions are 'foreign' to you?
I somehow think so.



P.S. ... why don't you go and live in the dystopia (Rwanda?) you appear to align yourself with?

Now, this is not an "argument" and or "debate", it is merely inane gibberish. It is herbert attempting and failing miserably at typing in a cryptic manner that doesn't break the terms of the site TOU. It simply doesn't mean anything in context to " real arguing". Herbert's attempt to define "real arguing" is simplified baby talk for those who HE considers idiotic and which is most other people on this site.

A more grown-up explanation written in plain English.

"The two main models of argument desired in college courses as part of the training for academic or professional life are rhetorical argument and academic argument. If rhetoric is the study of the craft of writing and speaking, particularly writing or speaking designed to convince and persuade, the student studying rhetorical argument focuses on how to create an argument that convinces and persuades effectively. To that end, the student must understand how to think broadly about argument, the particular vocabulary of argument, and the logic of argument. The close sibling of rhetorical argument is academic argument, argument used to discuss and evaluate ideas, usually within a professional field of study, and to convince others of those ideas. In academic argument, interpretation and research play the central roles."

"However, it would be incorrect to say that academic argument and rhetorical argument do not overlap. Indeed, they do, and often. A psychologist not only wishes to prove an important idea with research, but she will also wish to do so in the most effective way possible. A politician will want to make the most persuasive case for his side, but he should also be mindful of data that may support his points. Thus, throughout this chapter, when you see the term argument, it refers to a broad category including both rhetorical and academic argument."

Source: Pressbooks.

Now notice the use of the word "broad" and that's what herberts general views, including his definition of "real arguing", lack. Simply because his NARROW view of the world does NOT reflect the world that exists around him.

Simply because he is googling herbert, who doesn't quote his sources and therefore his plagiarised (stolen) views are not worth a dime.

 

[Cera]

I don't argue. I win

You do not have to argue. Just make people feel, something.