What is an arguement when it is not dialectic?

Question

Plato made a distinction between two forms of arguement. On the one hand he described a form of arguement where both parties respectively hold the positions of thesis and antithesis and through a joint effort resolved the apparent differences in their positions by moving to a synthesis. This style of arguement he called dialectic.

He contrasted this style of arguement favourably with another form for which I cannot remember and cannot find the name for. But the disfavoured form of arguement consisted of two parties establishing a difference of opinion and then setting about discovering who was correct and who was incorrect.

Please help.

Answer 1

Before you put this long and detailed question on the net don't you think you ought to learn how to spell argument? When the dialectic is not operating there is only stagnation, in argument as well as in politics and economics.

Answer 2

The argument is not dialectic if it is between you and your ego. To be able to think you must be able to create a picture of yourself to argue with...

The ego! If you see something as true then all thought stops, there is no need to continue. The only real truth you have is "I don't know". Everything else is relative to that fact.

Fact is always relative to what you know!... A fact is a relative truth, until it is disproved by a higher truth!

Answer 3

You should spell "argument"! Maybe a dispute, a discussion?

Answer 4

Discursive, I think.

Answer 5

is the other kind of argument the kind that involves you arguing with yourself? I call that self-chat.

Answer 6

Is it rhetoric? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

Answer 7

Sorry, your question is way over my head.