Which is your preferred style of arguing an issue: to argue adversarially or to argue cooperatively?

Question

I don't mean "to argue" in the sense of "the style typical while fighting over personal disagreements" but more in the sense of "the style chosen while reasoning and justifying your thoughts on an issue or topic in philosophy during a discussion."

Answer 1

My words and demeanor in any discussion is cooperation. To justify thoughts in an adversarial way really doesn't get the point across. Found that being adversarial in thoughts on a certain topic, just breeds hostility in the listener.

Answer 2

You are talking about "arguing" in the "discussing" way--the type of arguing where we seek to provide sound reasoning to support the points we are offering.

As to the style, I think that depends on several factors. First, the importance of the issue may lead us to approach it in a certain way--we are much more likely to be adversarial on an issue that we believe strongly about. Second, the attitude of the other person will have an effect--if the person we are discussing the issue with refuses to be open-minded, we might become more adversarial in order to try to get our point across.

Third, our approach might be affected by how different our views are from those of our debating partner. When we are almost--but not quite--in agreement with someone, we often find that the difference lies in a definition or some other very subtle point. We often assume a very different attitude in those "intricate" discussions that we would when debating with someone who has a completely different perspective (when the perspectives are very different, an adversarial position makes more sense).

There may be other factors involved, but I see these as three that clearly shape the style which is used. It isn't so much about what style a person likes--the key is to ask which style is most apt to achieve the goal (which, in philosophy, should always be the discovery of truth).

Answer 3

I love to give a credit due for a good point, but mostly discuss
adversarially. Hate it when people can not provide educated facts, but argue on things like they really know what they are saying.

Answer 4

It depends on why I am arguing.
It may be to win or it may simply to be a devil's advocate. If it is to win, I either
1) 'test the waters' cooperatively, and then if I need to I will be advasrial,
2) 'set up' the other side cooperatively and then, before they see it coming, become advasarial, or
3) just be advasarial
If it is just being a devil's advocate, then advasarial

Answer 5

Why does your lady friend pick to argue? If she does this for leisure, she has to maintain in mind that the Malkovich in you is going to damage her each and every time. also, is this debating, or finished-blown arguing? the 2d selection could make you imagine about no matter if this woman has serious psychological complications. no matter if it really is debating, then tell her to alert you once you get harsh, so that you'll communicate different matters.

Answer 6

My favourite way to debate ,or discuss interesting topics, is to allow my inspiration to throw up new or surprising aspects and points of view. This will often cause a shock, or pause in someone's pattern of response, allowing the all important sense of not knowing to enter. It also tends to more humour.
In this way we can really come up with something interesting .
It's not just one way though, I like others to do the same with me, and when i find those rare individuals ,who can really think for themselves, and come up with surprising angles, I really value them.

Answer 7

It is my experience that most people are arguing because they need their opinion validated by others for it to have any value and so reasoning and justifying your thoughts is like tossing them to the wind.

Answer 8

I suppose I generally argue adversarily, but...not always. I'm not sure which I prefer, I can really go both ways.

Answer 9

No argument but an informed discussion is the way

Answer 10

mutual discussion is almost nonexistent. it's all about who yells the most to gain power in the conversation even if they know they're wrong. pride supersedes reasoning.