Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fargren | Hacker News Reader

No, arguing is not pointless. But the point of arguing is rarely to convince someone of anything. The point of arguing is learning the other persons arguments and the flaws in your own. Arguing is platonic dialectic. The author gets very close to the point of argumentation, and then misses it.

View on HN

In my mind, you're making the case for debate. Argument has an emotional connotation, where as debate is more educational in connotation.

Arguing over minor differences in words when a person's intent is sufficiently clear ... really is pointless.

Not a minor difference; debates happen in civil threads on this site. Arguments involve situations like blowhards yelling at cops giving them parking tickets.

TFA confuses the two to some extent.

I find most debate tactics pointless. I find some of them a bit intellectually dishonest. An honest search for the truth involves questioning and self doubt. A lot of the way debating is practiced discourages the right kind of openness and keeps people away from the truth.

I think I'd like to see more of the "intellectual potlach" I see a few really brilliant and confident people playing. (They are so confident, they willingly put their ideas into the fire, knowing they'll most likely come out unscathed.)

The point of arguing, according to "Thank You for Arguing" and rhetorics, is to persuade and be persuaded to take some sort of action. The article described fighting, not arguing.

Platonic dialectic is related yet different, but I can see how modern ignorance of rhetorics have led people to equate platonic dialectic with debate, arguing with fighting.

I agree that he missed the point about what argumentation really is. If you do it right you, your 'opponent' and everyone else listening learns something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com