aight, i’m not in the mood, yet I am. kkkkkkurrazy

So the other night at dinner, we were talking after eating, and so someone brought up a statement, and then I automatically started arguing against them. Not really arguing I guess, more like testing to see if I could find someone way to uhh…win against them or something. I’m not to sure how to put it. Regardless, I started arguing for argument’s sake.

A while ago, years maybe? I decided that arguing for argument’s sake is definitely the way to go for people who aren’t strong-willed enough to stand by their convictions, and so I adopted it as holy writ, and practice it non-stop. I did it all through high school for my papers, I do it when friends bring up points, etc etc.

So the argument transitioned into soon an argument about arguing for argument’s sake. Now, the point of arguing for argument’s sake or as I’ll call it, AA, is to argue against your opinion, or that is, what you observe to be the truth with all the understanding of the topic you have. So your opponent then argues for the truth, AT. Now clearly, if both parties have a clear understanding of the truth, then the truth must win in an argument, the facts will force it. However, when not enough facts are known, that’s the only opportunity for an AA win. Because points can be made that would normally be refuted by facts, but cannot be refuted by the ATer because that person doesn’t know enough of the truth to put up an effective counter-argument.

So then, ultimately, AAing is a basis only for losing arguments, because though you can win in one case, there will always be a circumstance where another could potentially come along with an equal or even greater understanding. Defeat then ensues, and then one saves face by saying “I only argued for argument’s sake”

Yeah, that wasn’t worth a wait now was it.