Whats the difference between arguing and sharing an opinion?

Post Reply New Topic

People may say you are arguing if they can't handle your disagreement with their opinions, so they make it seem like you're doing something wrong when you share your opinion that disagrees with theirs.

According to this book on rhetoric I've got (Thank You for Arguing, I recommend it), argument is trying to convince the other person/people of... something. If you're just stating your opinion without the intent to convince, then you are not starting an argument. However, if the other person then tries to convince you that your opinion is incorrect (or convince you of anything), then they turn it into an argument. If they try to insult your argument (or you) or be contrary without trying to convince and/or without allowing a chance to argue back, then that turns it into a fight, not an argument.

Example opinion: "I think that puppies are the cutest."

Opinion response:
"I prefer kittens myself." (differing opinion, no attempt to change yours)

Argument response:
"Yeah, but kittens don't drool as much, or bark, and they're a much better size for cuddling." (differing opinion, attempting to convince you of something different)

Fight response:
"You're wrong and puppies are stupid." (differing opinion, personal attack, and an attack on your opinion)

Of course, this is the logical conversation tree: you state an opinion, and the other person turns the conversation into the phase they want (opinion/argument/fight). But just because you start out the conversation with the opinion phase, doesn't mean that people know that. They might take your puppy comment as a personal attack on their kitten preference.

An opinion. You're not lambasting anybody for liking animals that drool and bark. You are only expressing your opinion.

This is a fascinating discussion!

I was thinking that it's odd that the words "argument" and "opinion" both have common meanings that are nearly opposite.

A court or technical body offers "an opinion" on something and it's understood to be a highly considered formal document, grounded in deep expertise. When the Supreme Court of the US offers an opinion after hearing arguments, it's the law of the land. On the other end of the scale, "it's just a matter of opinion" often means that it's a minor preference, barely considered and of no deep import, something like preference in food taste--just an individual thing.

An argument is, in one sense, merely the expression of an idea that declares some sort of relationship between elements. in another sense, an argument is a low-intensity fight. "There was a loud argument in the street, then suddenly, shots were fired."

I think there is a role for verbal encounters as generators of group cohesion. This is obvious in Japanese culture, but until I read this thread I didn't really recognize how much it's part of western culture: people have discussion which seem to be "sharing opinions" but are really collaborative building of group identity. If you are participating in such a thing, you have to agree. You can embellish and add depth, but you can't express a contrary view. There is a tacit understanding that "We" think the same thing. If you say something else you are declaring yourself an outsider, not part of the "we" of the conversation.

To offer a contrary opinion or argue a different point is to be disagreeable and argumentative. The apparent discussion is not really a discussion about the core ideas at all, but a way for the participants to reinforce one another in the shared identity they are building, to identify what "people like us" think.

To engage the topic as if the details were important is to violate that shared identity.

To extend Dwarvyn's example, the team/group identity building response would be something like this--

Group identity building response:
"Oh yes! puppies are so cute! I like kittens too! There is something about baby mammals with their cute little faces!"

I think this is going on all the time, but it's easy to mistake it for real discussion.

I'm the same way, Nerdygirl!

I'm tired of this modern culture--people get so dang garn offended all the time!

That's the thing that we have to learn in life:

How to express a contrary opinion in a diplomatic manner.

Yes, I'm aware that I didn't use a complex, dialectical approach when I came to this conclusion

Yep...that's the way it seems to work these days in some circles.

Those circles aren't worth hanging around in.

If it happens to be on your job, you could just take the "obsessed with work" approach.

It doesn't mean one should give up, though.

There are many reasonable people around. still.

There is no of way of knowing what the issue is with the OP because we weren't there to witness these conversations in which he was branded as "argumentative", and he hasn't described examples.

It could have more to do with social context than with the nature of "what is an argument".

If everyone is just making small talk about the weather, and you suddenly present a thought out analysis of today's weather as compared to other days-then you would be doing the socially unexpected. And it might come off as argumentative.

That's true, too.