As many of you know I like to argue first and foremost. Discussion and debate are secondary preferences and I do not prefer to fight.

I do believe that many of you equate argument with debate with fight and therefore prefer to only discuss as you also do not prefer to fight.

This is the premise of my argument.

Why don't we address this in the ways that we each see fit. I will do my best to match your style. If you argue, I will argue, if you discuss, I will discuss, if you debate, I will debate, if you fight, I will fight.

I will do my best.

Why don't you just be you, instead of trying to stay on the same plateau as others.

Does it really matter if we approach communication differently? And if it does, does it matter enough that you must shift stances to fit the recipient of your communication? Seems a bit extreme. Especially for all your talk that this is the modern era and we should let go of old traditions (the tradition I'm speaking of being reservation). Shouldn't you just be you and not worry about your approach to others?

so if someone talks to you in swahili, you'll answer them in swahili?

nope, cause you can't.

Kajak's right; be you as best you can, rather than be a 2nd rate version of someone else.

And who am I?

And although I don't speak swahili, I do argue, debate, discuss, and on rare occasion fight, so yeah, I CAN communicate in all those languages.

But true, I prefer to argue but most do not. I am beginning to think that a 1st rate me individually is a second rate me socially and vice versa.

I am trying to find harmony.

harmony is all very well and good.

can you compromise?

As far as i can tell the first step towards good communication is being willing to abandon any specific opinion in favour of getting along. Good conversation with a person is about taking care of the other person.

you can argue, discuss, throw words at folks, sure. And i've heard you talk with disdain about conversations which don't meet your standards of value.

I think that you can tease remarkable insights out of almost anyone, to be honest, if you go about it the right way. the first step towards that imo is to draw the other person into talking, and responding in kind is only a good way to do this in certain circumstances.

matching someone else's style in conversation is a lot like exactly mimicing their moves in chess; it'll get you a long way without trouble, but it's a game-loser nonetheless.

my two cents. throw them in the wishing well and wish that i'll go away, w/e. ^_^

Man I though this topic was going to be preffered method of communication with others. I was wrong, so wrong.

IM and in person btw. Not a huge fan of talking on the phone.

Also Debate >>> Argumentation. Arguments are typically what leads to fights, debates typically lead to both sides being more enlightened, at least to to the others point of view.

Also arguing, not the best way to be social, actually debate either, most people don't really like challenging their beliefs, especially with total strangers. As useless as small talk is on the surface, it is very useful in building relationships to the level of 'real' conversation. I'm slowly realizing this fact myself as I take stock in my circle of friends and interactions with others.

I believe we've had the argument debate before, and basically it comes down to intention and to a certain extent semantics (subtle but often very important). Debate is talking about two or more ideas with the outcome of trying to find a solution, or to learn about the others idea (Insert joke about political 'debates' here). Argument it trying to prove your own idea to be correct, regardless of its merit. Argumentation is combative typically, and being combative is a big turn off for most people.

I do it with my fist.

I AM MAN. I EAT MEAT.

Actually, I try to keep everybody on the same level and be as nice-but-not-overbearingly-so until I have a definite reason not to. This is the way I adopted for myself.

It's better to stay firm on your own character rather than mold yourslf to suit another, imo. You lose identity doing that. Without identity, you're meaningless.

I agree with that. Like I heard someone said once. It's like building a bonfire.
You need to start putting small branches that burn very quickly, but keep the fire on until the bigger branches starts to burn, and then the biggest logs.

The analogy was meant to be about friendship, but I also see it as a way of communicating. You start with small talks, but eventually, that won't be enough, and you'll want to start going into deeper and personal stuff. I can't say that's the way I do things, but it does make a lot of sense to me.

I just want to be clear that while different people have different meanings of argument and debate, when I say that I prefer argument, I am saying that I prefer attempting to agree at true premises and valid lines of reasonings to apply to those premises to arrive at the most reliable conclusion no matter what it is, no matter how hard it is to hear it, and no matter what it makes you look like. I don't treat it as a win/lose situation though attacking and defending are essential.

When I refer to debate, I mean appealing to (my definition of) argumentation, but additionally appealing to things other than argumentation (i.e. emotion) to coerce or direct toward a particular apriori conclusion (one conceived of beforehand rather than discovered) and oftentimes in an attempt to gain external support (i.e. win).

Regardless of the argument or debate over these terms, this is what I mean when I use these words.

I say, be nice to others the way you want to be treated. And like the army says "be all you can be" what ever that means.

Thanks, Kittykicker!