Argument for Argument's Sake

[Doug]

[FONT=&amp]
Argument for argument's sake is not an attempt to inform another of your point of view or to persuade another of the validity of your argument. Similar to “doing the dozens,” it is an attempt to gain dominance over another by continually countering the other’s arguments with verbal and logical gymnastics to make them appear inferior.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]If two or more parties enter into an “A for A” situation in the spirit of making it a game, it can be relatively harmless.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Problems can occur, however, if one or more parties attribute his, her, or their personal worth to the ability to “win” the argument by making the opponent(s) appear foolish, incompetent, uninformed, or stupid.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]This may result from Oppositional Defiant Disorder, in which the person takes pleasure from being contrary and causing consternation in as many people as possible.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]So, fellow (and sisterly) INGOer’s, enjoy your repartee, but keep in mind that some may have more at stake than others. If someone seems to need to win at any cost, his or her self-worth may be tied up in the discussion or he or she may suffer from ODD. It may be better to just let him/her win rather than cause him/her pain.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Of course, you cannot expect such consideration from one who needs to dominate others to feel good about him- or her- self, but such is life.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]

 

[KJQ6945]

IBATM

 

[2A_Tom]

Truth is lost on those with an agenda.

 

[BGDave]

Very well said. I've always maintained that most of these types live and die on not being "right", but, "not being wrong". And, yes, they are obnoxious. Hi, Kevin. We know guys like this. (quoted the wrong dude, but I like popcorn too).

 

[femurphy77]

Here we go again!

 

[Doug]

Again?
I am not aware of other threads of this nature.

 

[cordex]

I disagree.

 

[Doug]

I disagree.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is a War Room!"

 

[ATM]

In.

 

[indiucky]

I argue with Kut, Alpo, and ATM because I like them and it's the only chance I get to spend any time with them....

 

[Denny347]

[FONT=&amp]
Argument for argument's sake is not an attempt to inform another of your point of view or to persuade another of the validity of your argument. Similar to “doing the dozens,” it is an attempt to gain dominance over another by continually countering the other’s arguments with verbal and logical gymnastics to make them appear inferior.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]If two or more parties enter into an “A for A” situation in the spirit of making it a game, it can be relatively harmless.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Problems can occur, however, if one or more parties attribute his, her, or their personal worth to the ability to “win” the argument by making the opponent(s) appear foolish, incompetent, uninformed, or stupid.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]This may result from Oppositional Defiant Disorder, in which the person takes pleasure from being contrary and causing consternation in as many people as possible.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]So, fellow (and sisterly) INGOer’s, enjoy your repartee, but keep in mind that some may have more at stake than others. If someone seems to need to win at any cost, his or her self-worth may be tied up in the discussion or he or she may suffer from ODD. It may be better to just let him/her win rather than cause him/her pain.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Of course, you cannot expect such consideration from one who needs to dominate others to feel good about him- or her- self, but such is life.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]

I'm going to need some stats for that.

 

[BGDave]

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is a War Room!"

Do you want a mine shaft gap, because that's how you get a mine shaft gap.

 

[Doug]

I provided a definition, stated some opinions, and offered some advice. What stats are needed?

Or is this an example of "A for A?"

 

[Denny347]

I provided a definition, stated some opinions, and offered some advice. What stats are needed?

Or is this an example of "A for A?"

 

[Doug]

 

[churchmouse]

[FONT=&]
Argument for argument's sake is not an attempt to inform another of your point of view or to persuade another of the validity of your argument. Similar to “doing the dozens,” it is an attempt to gain dominance over another by continually countering the other’s arguments with verbal and logical gymnastics to make them appear inferior.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT][FONT=&]If two or more parties enter into an “A for A” situation in the spirit of making it a game, it can be relatively harmless.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Problems can occur, however, if one or more parties attribute his, her, or their personal worth to the ability to “win” the argument by making the opponent(s) appear foolish, incompetent, uninformed, or stupid.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]This may result from Oppositional Defiant Disorder, in which the person takes pleasure from being contrary and causing consternation in as many people as possible.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]So, fellow (and sisterly) INGOer’s, enjoy your repartee, but keep in mind that some may have more at stake than others. If someone seems to need to win at any cost, his or her self-worth may be tied up in the discussion or he or she may suffer from ODD. It may be better to just let him/her win rather than cause him/her pain.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Of course, you cannot expect such consideration from one who needs to dominate others to feel good about him- or her- self, but such is life.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

OK we need to see a link so we can verify.............To soon..??

 

[Doug]

To paraphrase U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, you'll know it when you see it.

 

[Ddillard]

 

[churchmouse]

In this I have identified such a person running his game as I type.

Good call OP.