> "An argument should be a collaboration between two people to find the truth."
Well yes, it can certainly take that form. But I don't think that there is any shame to admitting that it can also be a way to get your own way. An argument can be an act of seduction, the aim of which is to seed novel ideas into the ether.
Within the context of applying an argument constructively, I think it's a good list.
That's a nice distinction. But from a practioners point if view, I see little difference. Who would argue without the implicit desire to convince/convert?
Agreed... It is a good list. The recommendation to argue in person and not via media is very pertinent.
One thing the list misses is the importance and power of facts. Indeed, the English philosopher Hume positioned facts as the atomic indivisible of philosophical discorse. Of course, facts can be twistered... But ultimately there is no such thing as 'your facts' and 'my facts'. Anyone with the facts at their disposal has the power of god in an argument. Like him or loath him, this acounts for the ability of Chriopher Hitchinns to completely destroy his opononets (Aka the famous Hitchslap).
Me? I'm an engineer, when I 'argue' with my co-workers, it is with the goal of finding the best solution. I don't care whose solution it is. I want to find consensus on what is the best solution.
However, without some form of positioal oposition there can be no argument.