Debating vs. Arguing

What is the difference between arguing and debating?

I was always taught arguing was to be avoided, and I haven't ever heard of 'debating" before. Now I read people actually took a debating class in school!

Is debating... "glorified" arguing? I read some of these threads on ATS and it sure seems like there is more arguing going on than debating. So what's the difference?

I tried to do some research online about the differences, but to me, they seem the same.

For instance in Wiki "debating" says:

Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

But then for "argue" it says:

to argue
1. To debate, disagree, or discuss opposing or differing viewpoints.
2. To have an argument, a quarrel.
3. To present (a viewpoint or an argument therefor).

So, it seems like formal arguing is now acceptable in society.

Are polite discussions and conversations still around? It seems conversing is a better way to share ideas with people.

See this quote from a page I found on "debating vs conversations":

Is "debate" or "conversation" the most useful form of public discourse?

While debate brings rigor to analysis, it is essentially confrontational. Talking of debate can be misleading and counterproductive - part of the problem - when there is a need to build ideas and to seek creative solutions interdependently. For by its very nature a debate is a contest, a game, with winners and losers defined by who is right and who is wrong.

Inviting people to contribute to a debate is to set up adversarial positions which are attacked and defended. When this happens the aggressive and antagonist models of interaction which apply in most 'advanced' democracies are inevitably set in train. This often means no agreement or consensus, no positive 'next moves', and consequently no progress.

To converse, rather than debate.

Persuasion and agreement are irrelevant when people converse, as are right and wrong, and the more the diversity of opinion the greater the likely emergence of imaginative solutions. For conversing is the fount of creativity, respect, trust and goodwill, all of which are prerequisites to peoples adapting harmoniously to change.

Participants in a conversation come to appreciate that all have something to contribute to building a more accurate picture of reality and building a good solution. In this context people who disagree with us need to be very carefully listened to because their critiques help us see things we might otherwise miss. Keeping the spirit of mutuality and respect alive as we converse about our different views, then, is the way of allowing all the differences -- which are valuable to creating the best thinking -- to come to the surface and be carefully considered. When the people who disagree are finally satisfied, then we know we have something that everyone can participate in building.

Care to share your thoughts? thanks!

reply to post by sodakota

What is the difference between arguing and debating?

Debate is a game people play. Games have rules.

Argument is (generally) two people speaking their opinions at each other until someone gets angry or bored enough to stop.

I would encourage people to neither debate nor argue, but instead, share their perspective with and listen to the perspectives of others. It is unlikely that you will ever convince someone to see things your way, but if you examine their point of view you may be able to understand why they see things the way they do.

Understanding someone else's way of thinking may often be of more value than browbeating them until they submit to yours.

Arguing can have it's effect here too.

Like when someone just reads the OP on a 4 page thread and just decides to skip the pages and post their initial reply.

yes everyone has the right to initial reaction on everything. But on a board like this, unless you are in on the first couple of posts then you lose impetus.

To debate however you have to listen to the point of you opponent, and take into account what may be new information. and even to admit that your stand point may be wrong.

Debating IMO is about learning and moving forward in a rational manner. Arguing is an emotional response solely about getting your point across. Which in my experience does not succeed 90% of the time.

It's a fine line. when allot of the time debates can fall into argument. and when that happens you just don't care what the other has to say, because your point is all important, and has too much emotion attached to it, and that why it hurts when we are proven wrong. At least in debate I feel you should be prepared for that eventuality.

Well, all I know is that I have unpopular opinions on some things. Sometimes some people have used the "argumentative" claim to silence me from expressing my views. There have been many times when I have been tactful in my responses, it's just that I had a different opinion on something that irked someone and said I was posting inflammatory material.

But sometimes being argumentative can take a hostile tone, which what I think is probably the more direct definition of "no arguing".

is this the bureau of arguments?
no it isn't
but it says it is on the door
no it doesn't
yes it does
no it does not
i came in here for an arguement
no you didn't'
yes I did
NO you did not
(Arguement no it isn't yes it is no it is not yes it is NO it is NOT YES it IS...)

Link please
(Debate)

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Danbones]