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.