Arguing the Point - What's it Mean then?

[Deano!]

I'm interested in the mechanics and logic of arguments and how you Earth people carry this task out.

One phrase I often hear concerns the accusation that someone is 'arguing the point'. This confuses me.

I thought any argument involved starting from a central assertion that one person believed to be accepted as true, while the opposition in the argument disputed that it was unarguably true. The central assertion was vital to the argument because it formed the foundation on which other assertions could reliably be built. To argue that the original argument was unsound is surely the whole reason for having the discussion in the first place, yet to do so usually results in the old "you're just arguing the point - there's no point talking to you" tack and the whole exercise breaks down.

I would have thought this was the exact stage of argument that should be seized upon and relished, yet it seems to result in the whole process being abandoned just when I find it at it's most interesting.

[Daz Savage]

The fact is that few people ask questions to ascertain information.
The general rule in society today appears to be the assertion of an already held belief, cloaked in the guise of an open offer to discuss.
Example:
Do you think pornstars are prostitutes?
I think they must be because it's all the same thing and anyone who does something likem this must be a whore.
(this one cropped up here a while back - and is certainly NOT my take on the matter).

I argued vehemently that this was simply an inflammatory and wholly inaccurate observation that mixed bad information with a refusal to research further.
The OP asked for people to discuss the issue but certainly didn't want anyone arguing the point.
He wanted affirmation, confirmation and a thread that lasted for ever.

imho, those attempting to enter into discussion and debate should be mentally prepared for the arena they are stepping into.
So few are.

[frankthring]

Deano, without getting drawn into a philospohpical argument surely
its all about use of english ? Arguing the point simply means arguing
the "assertion" as you call it. A point of an argument is an assertion
- isn`t it ?

[andy at handiwork]

I've always known it as 'arguing the toss'.

[Deano!]

This is the technique used by enthusiasts of certain religions.

As a much younger man I used to try to argue with a Jehovah's Witness where I worked. It became apparent to me that doubting their teachings (and some rather wacky predictions too) just wasn't an option in his mind - or at least that he would ever admit. He was quite happy to use logical arguments to dismiss other religions however!

[Deano!]

frankthring wrote:

>
> Deano, without getting drawn into a philospohpical argument
> surely
> its all about use of english ? Arguing the point simply
> means arguing
> the "assertion" as you call it. A point of an argument is an
> assertion
> - isn`t it ?

Yes, I agree with that. My confusion arises when people claim that 'arguing the point' is some corruption of the discussion process and that there is no use continuing with someone who wont play by the rules. If the rules of argument meant you had to start off by agreeing with the initial assertion, then the process of argument would be 'pointless' (no pun intended).

Thus you would have -
1st Person: "All porn stars are prostitutes".
Everyone Else: "Yes" (while not really agreeing, but feel they mustn't argue the point).

By the way, I have a brother who will happily dispute any number of generally accepted reliable sources (Britannica, Guinness Book, actual photographs etc) that might show him to be wrong, yet will resort to those same resources when they coincide with his beliefs. I have never been able to get an explanation from him about this apparent hypocrisy.