Arguementation is the systematic reasoning that you use to support your arguements

No.

It's not @Awrini

So a debate without arguementation is just bullshit

what is argumentation then?

Yes it is. It's the literal definition

hold on

@Dennafen what do you define as argumentation?

argumentation is good

fighting is what you are confusing it as

I stop looking at general for five minutes and you guys debate up a 100+ message storm ⛈

Argumentation is the promotion of discovery of truth though discussion. You don't go into it with pre conceived idea of what is right or wrong.

a debate doesn't have to be adversarial

In a debate, you just have 2 opposing stances

And the goal is to try and persuade others to agree with your viewpoint/arguments, so either your opponent, or your audience

Yes @Dr.Wol Debate is adversarial.

what definition did you pull that from?

seriously, what?

because everyone else was using the "the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion" definition

Man i wish we had a debate channel ...for liek debates ....

Lmao 😂

we do, but that channel is in permanent "slow" mode

so you can't talk fast

Oh i didnt even know that

forget something? gotta wait 10 seconds and forget it agian

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition David Zarefsky

and JDM won't take it off slow mo

Is where I got it.

"Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning; that is, claims based, soundly or not, on premises."

" It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings"

sound about right?

or did he use a very different definition that he made up for his book

so... how is that not debating?

At the end of a debate, people draw their own conclusions and either agree or disagree

i guess there is a chicken and the egg problem where

Close enough.

debate requires argumentation, but argumentation includes debate

I just use Merriam webster when i googled the word

"the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion"

Okay, it's not adversarial. Debate is.

argumentation doesn't have to be a debate,

You can make your argument without having a counter-argument given,

By preaching for example

Debate requires it, but it is not debate, sound fair?

Argumentation has an interlocutor, but it's not a debate.

Debate requires arguments to be presented, but it's not argumentation.

presenting arguments is argumentation

No.

I just use Merriam webster when i googled the word

"the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion"

I like how people try to redefine words.

I'm not redefining a word.

I'm using the original definition.

the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory. ?

that is debatable

lol

damn you got me there,

I didn't get to talk to the guy who invented the word 😦

you'd have to prove that was the first ever use of the term

i have to go with a dictionary definition

which, technically, it isn't even the first use, give that its the second edition

but it most likely didn't change much

you guys arguing over semantics?

yes

Actually, no.

we're debating!

.... there is irony here

😛

its semantics ultimately, but thats 90% of internet debate

<:NFA:354470494747230208>

that's because people's arguments suck without redefining words.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkF_u4XW4AI5liK.jpg

zionism debunked!

"In ordinary discourse, the word “argue” often means “to disagree” (usually it carries the implication that someone does so insistently or aggressively). In argumentation theory, argument in the sense of disagreement is often called “argument-2” (see Goodwin 2001). Like other logics, informal logic focuses on arguing in a narrower sense, understanding an argument as an attempt to provide evidence in favour of some point of view. This can usefully be called an evidentiary account of argument. It makes arguing an intentional act (a speech or communication act) which is usually embedded in argument in the broader sense, functioning as an attempt to resolve the disagreement this implies."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Arg

A rose by any other name...

So yes, we ARE redefining words
Got it.

Okay, if you want to say that, go for it.

that...

It's still a skill you need to learn, not something you can just read in a book.

"Argumentation is the promotion of discovery of truth though discussion. You don't go into it with pre conceived idea of what is right or wrong."

Tell me, how does one discover truth with argumentation if you cannot have the pre conceived idea of right or wrong? truth is not a form of right? what is the term "right or wrong" mean here, a preconceived notion of the truth, or of a moral right or wrong." If you believe you discovered truth through previous argumentation, but ascertain the notion you may be wrong, and proceed to enter a debate to test how this theory holds up, is that not argumentation?

the skill of persuasion? not sure I'd buy a car from you though.

Okay for example, "Should we punch nazis" I'm of the opinion that we should not punch nazis.

depends on the goal

That violence is a poor means of debate.

that would be a moral claim

Let me finish.

So while I'm of that opinion if I were to argue that point with you, I would have to be willing to be convinced other wise.

I, on the other hand, am all for punching Nazis. But hey, good luck actually finding one.

lol

And we together would be trying to seek what IS right not what we already believe to be right.

correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't whether or not any given debate is or is not a form of argumentation depend on the intention of the people in a debate?

https://youtu.be/1joIBFzCjFk

Debate is not argumentation it is, by definition antagonistic.

When you go into a debate, you're going into win the debate.

are you?

Yes.

context matters fellas. If you are trying to WIN, you don't need an open mind, you just need your talking points. If you are trying to actually communicate with eachother....on the other hand.

i don't always enter a debate to be right

Then it's not a debate.

sometimes i enter it to prove the flaws in someones logic

That's not a debate.

but it has two sides

Okay, it's not a debate.

that are opposing one another

you guys can debate this if you want, but I don't feel like arguing.

Okay, that's not what a debate is, a debate are two opposed side trying to convince a third party.

Ok, so what is the Dennafenian definition of debate?