I like a good debate but dislike arguing.

semantics aside,, what do you feel is the difference?

I consider a debate a conversation of different opinions with rules of conduct and respect which follows a logical flow of relevant points

and an argument is a conversation of different opinions with no rules(and generally plenty of disrespect and insults) which follows only the flow of emotions



there are some who have learned the discipline of recognizing one from the other, and steering clear of the latter

I am still learning, but I greatly respect you for sure

A debate doesn't include snarky remarks.

I agree with your definition and preference. We will have many different opinions on important topics, and discussion is healthy.

do you suppose a snark is a hybrid of a snake and a shark? :P

Isn't that what a politician is?

I understand where you are going with this:

DEBATE

noun: debate; plural noun: debates

1. a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

ARGUMENT

noun: argument; plural noun: arguments

1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

DISCUSSION

noun: discussion

1. the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

I have seen some pretty heated debates in the public. Recently the US presidential campaign.

I have had an argument that was not heated or angry.

I prefer discussions on topics and ideas where each participant gets the same respect and courtesy.


Most snarky people have tendancies that resemble both a snake and a shark.

or

A fusion of Country and Rap music = Crap

A debate is for adults, apparently
An argument is for kids, some prefer to call it a squabble.

In that case, this site has plenty of kids who are members.

haaa

I like country with rap, but that crap comment was funny

I think a debate is where opposing views on a subject or issue are presented by two people to an audience, and each speaker can be questioned at the end of their presentation by members of the audience. A vote may be taken at the beginning and end of a debate to establish if the speakers have changed the general consensus or to arrive at some decision on the issue. I think of an argument as something that takes place usually between two people regarding a specific issue, resulting in no change in opinion on either side.

a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
synonyms: discussion, discourse, parley, dialogue;

Regardless of the exact words you choose to differentiate between the two, it is true that SOME people with whom we try to interact are trying to find a way to get along with each other, and SOME are simply trying to smash their way into getting what they want, or to petulantly damage someone else's sensibilities to no positive end.

I don't care for the latter, and lose interest in any interaction with those who thus indulge themselves.

I first stated noticing when I was a VERY young child, that not everyone around me, was yelling or making making up argument points, for the sake of resolving issues; many, especially my fellow children, were just doing what I would now call "posturing for effect." Making what they hoped were strong-sounding self-righteous statements, which were intended to do only one thing: allow them to pretend that they were some sort of superhero or Master, who would spout a phrase, and then stand and let their colorful cape wave dramatically in the wind.

I dislike those kinds of people the most.

Nice



Agreed

I believe the tendency to be confrontational and argumentative stems from a feeling of inadequacy or excessive superiority.
Ignorance of the words used in arguments causes people to compensate for their lack of understanding. Not knowing how to do that causes them to 'fight or flight' the discussion.

People that are argumentative try to redirect the focus to others and seldom own their words and phrases. You did this or you did that. You made me feel this way so now I will make you feel worse so I can win. I am better than you so you don't know what you are talking about. I would tell you but you can't handle the truth.

Most people go thru life not understanding the actual meaning of the words they use. Words have power, especially spoken words. You can't "un-say" anything. When we say something that is not accurate, then realize it, we are forced with making a decision to either apologize or fight to keep it. Apologies are considered by most to be a sign of weakness. Others apologize to appease not actually feeling it but apologize to keep the peace.

If someone apologizes but does not mean it they are lying. Lying indicates self-esteem issues.

Depending on who is doing the debating and/or arguing, practically speaking there is little real difference.

IMO it's kind of like asking "safe spaces" or "gun free zones," what do you feel is the difference? Or "Monday night football, or C-Span, which leads to less rioting?"


I don't see that as a discipline so much as a facade based on fear and insecurity.

Arguing and debating both have their uses.

Arguments allow honest emotional communication.
IMO debates tend to focus more on limiting scope and facts in an attempt to remove emotion.

Next time you're in a relationship with a woman and ask her "what's wrong?" and she says "nothing," tell her you're going to set up a debate, hand her a list of rules of acceptable behavior and expectations, tell her you're going to prove why she's lying, and she will only have 30 seconds for rebuttal.

People that avoid arguing are just bottling up their emotions, IMO.
Trying to force their life into an objective observer, attempting to rely solely on facts and logic and reason is for cowardly control freaks that are scared of their emotions, their honesty and pain, IMO.
They can't control their emotions, so they look for the external things they can control (facts, logic, reason, objectivity), and simply bury their feelings.

The "discipline" of recognizing one from the other should be used to identify which approach you yourself should use, not which you should run away from.
Neither should be avoided.
Except on the internet, where debate and arguing are both pointless.
Both should be done face to face on an individual level.

Opinion noted...I disagree.

"facts and logic and reason" is not a cowardly control.

"cowardly control freaks that are scared of their emotions, their honesty and pain"
Fearing one's own honesty, emotion and pain is not a trait of someone that uses facts, logic and control.
Understanding ones own fears gives them logic and control.
Facts, Logic and Control allows for sound judgements and is effective in emotional dialog.
The question is "Do we control our emotions or do they control us?".



There are some that do but also some people that understand that some emotional states are not worthy of display. To me, that is not burying it is suppressing inaccuracies. A conscious effort for a desired effect or outcome.

Running away or emotional outbursts both indicate you are dealing with someone without personal control.

I enjoy a good discussion where everyone respects each other for their ideas, opinions, etc --- and dislike very much, anything that resembles an argument.

Unfortunately, it usually seems to be a battle where someone tries to convince me their opinion is the right one. So, I usually avoid a debate.


ETA: Recent political debates included a LOT of snark!

consideration can often be confused for 'fear'

(⊙‿⊙)✌