I argue a lot. People know that. Or at least i *think* they do.
Recently, in a newgropup someone said to me:
You can redefine anything you want according to your personal definition, and be right. But don't expect such practices to help you have a meaningful dialogue.
To which i replied:
I don't want dialogue, that's boring. I want an argument. One person states what he feels, I state what I feel, and then we try to show why the other opinion is incorrect. In the end, much is learnt, and the brain is thoroughly excersized.
That says it. I've argued before with others, that the best way to come to a conclusion is to find two people who passionately believe in opposing conclusions, but who are rational and want to argue. With such passion behind the opposing viewpoints, the opinions will get attacked from all sides, and only the truth will survive. People disagree, saying that it should be a discussion and not an arguement. The Fs say this so there is harmony. To which i agree, but mention that they do not take it personally. They just argue until conclusion, but of course stay friends.
The Ps say this is bad, since it must be a "discussion". IIRC, Meyers pointed out that Ps would rather not make a judgement. They want to see the thing from all sides, with a belief that the truth will become clear on its own. And will all aspects being covered, that is an excellent form of truth! Js, however, want to argue. As each point comes up it is either true or untrue. If true, the argument is over, if untrue, another point is evaluated.
As a J, the latter method is more enjoyable. As an INTJ, i take it to the extereme. Unfortunately, most people won't play. It's my loss. Oh well.
I have floated an idea of having a website that records and facilitates arguements. Whether possible or not, it's a dream i cannot ignore.