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.