The Theory of Argument/Conflict(s) Evolution

[Niwa Fox Rose]

Well, for the last four days I've been developing a technique for arguing. This technique is for setting up the argument in a well structured manner, and always focuses about gaining the upper hand in the argument. However, developing this technique has left me pondering about the evolution of argument. Of course, this left me to create my own, so I think, theory. Under is the theory that I have developed.

 

~~~~

 

When you look at society's definition of argument this topic is almost non-existent, lets look at the definition I've obtained from an average member of society: "Argument is when two opposing living things have conflict." Sounds simple enough, and boring to boot! We have to split up argument into three different categories: Physical, Emotional, and Intellectual. Then we must define each of those categories.

 

Physical Argument: This is the type of argument that the world started out on. When to life forces (any living thing) had a conflict with another, they simply would use an act of violence on them. This is when Emotional Argument began to develop.

 

Emotional Argument: This is the type of argument that existed when the first humans appeared. When they had a conflict with another they simple would scream and shout useless tidbits of their language not getting at a point. The loser was the one who stopped yelling first. This is when Intellectual Argument began to develop.

 

Intellectual Argument: This is the type of argument that exists today. We use thought out opinions and compose contrasting views to prove our point when in conflict with another.

 

When we look at those categories and definitions the topic exists; The Theory of Evolution of Argument.

 

~~~~

 

Interesting, right? Of course I ran into some sort of a problem. Some people say I'm looking at the theory of conflict, not argument. So, what would you have to say?

 

~~~~

 

Another interesting thing. If this theory is correct, then another question I have for you guys. We, as humans, use intellectual argument on a daily basis. However, I have noticed that it is more common, in average society, to use emotional argument. If that is true, then we must be going through a de-evolution process of argument. What does that have to say about our species? Is our species going through de-evolution? Or is the de-evolution of argument caused by the lower literacy standards in today's society?

Edited July 17, 2009 by Niwa Fox Rose

[thatboyChase]

lol

[Nephylim]

This is an interesting topic but could fall foul of semantics. Conflict, argument, debate, dissention etc etc.

 

I think you need first to carefully define your understanding of argument, because I would suggest that your definition for Physical Argument is not argument but conflict. For me Argument is when to people, sides, entities put forward differing views and continue to support, develop and advance them during the course of discussions which do not necessarily have to take place at one time, in one place or even with all protagonists present. For example academic argument.

 

The physical coming together of bodies whether in conflict or othewise does not, I suggest constitute argument as there is no expression, development or support of views. If there are words spoken before during or after the conflict, that is the argument.

 

Again emotional argument tends not to be true argument as shouting rude words at each other is not advancing any point of view but merely expressing emotion.

 

As far as I am concerned I don't think that we are regressing in this respect. People have always shouted rude words at each other and the art of true argument is beyond a lot of people but then it always has been.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Niwa Fox Rose]

This is an interesting topic but could fall foul of semantics. Conflict, argument, debate, dissention etc etc.

 

I think you need first to carefully define your understanding of argument, because I would suggest that your definition for Physical Argument is not argument but conflict. For me Argument is when to people, sides, entities put forward differing views and continue to support, develop and advance them during the course of discussions which do not necessarily have to take place at one time, in one place or even with all protagonists present. For example academic argument.

 

The physical coming together of bodies whether in conflict or othewise does not, I suggest constitute argument as there is no exp​ression, development or support of views. If there are words spoken before during or after the conflict, that is the argument.

 

Again emotional argument tends not to be true argument as shouting rude words at each other is not advancing any point of view but merely expressing emotion.

 

As far as I am concerned I don't think that we are regressing in this respect. People have always shouted rude words at each other and the art of true argument is beyond a lot of people but then it always has been.

 

 

 

Then, we could change evolution to development? Changing the Physical Argument and Emotional Argument into Physical and Emotional Conflict? Each definition would still apply, and this theory wouldn't have to be changed much.