[yotamarker]

why do humans argue ? what does it gain ? what triggers it ?

[Freddy]

I think opposing views or knowledge is what triggers arguments mostly. But then some days people are just cranky 

In terms of gains it could reward with improved knowledge and exposure to fresh ideas. If you're a troll then I guess the reward is amusement.

[HS]

We didn't evolve to function in groups this large. Now we try to apply instincts developed for dealing with groups of a hundred or so people, which you have known all your life, to billions of relative strangers. If not that, then its worse, then we form groups and label everyone else strangers, which gets pretty frightening, because the outsiders outnumber you so vastly. On a personal level, again, you mostly meet  strangers, which evolution did not prepare us for. We have yet to institute a universal educational system or philosophy which would allow us to navigate this relatively new "civilizational" situation a little more smoothly.

[ivan.moony]

Within the same group, animals fight over social position that brings in some benefits. I'd say we are still neanderthals. Really advanced humans would happily give social benefits to others.

[Art]

Sometimes it seems that Arguing is similar to Debating but without facts or constraints/rules (aka - a Free For All).

[goaty]

operand a.
operand b.

XOR means WAR.

[Korrelan]

A logical discussion becomes and argument when emotions are introduced/ involved.

 

[HS]

Yeah, emotions are a kind of accelerated logic with a few errors thrown in. Still, when emotions are involved, a logical discussion can become an amiable chat . So you can have pleasant errors too.

[Art]

What is the goal behind arguing?

To try to prove a point.

To attempt to force one's opinion/belief on someone else even if they don't necessarily believe it.

To get them to see the error of your ways?

[yotamarker]

we should discuss this much deeper.
example scripts of arguments
list types of arguments
styles or methodes of arguments

[yotamarker]

more argue types :

factual this is x, this code is needed here
neg : meaningless ?
outcome : prophesy arguement
goal : this methode would serve that goal
threatning : do it or else
bargaining : this costs 50% other there
lying : drink this to sprout wings
hypocracy detection
votable
war

[yotamarker]

I'll cross out negging cause no one need an AGI to neg we already have something like that

[WriterOfMinds]

Read some books on rhetoric and logic, maybe? I expect they'll have better and more complete thoughts on the subject than we could come up with here.  Formalized arguing has been a human discipline for thousands of years.

Edit: plus, there are books on business negotiation, conflict resolution, and diplomacy.

[goaty]

Ive got one for you.

Out of 2 arguments, which is false and which one is correct.

Put it into 2 operand logic table->
  AB
  00    -both arguments are incorrect
  01    -argument b is correct
  10    -argument a is correct
  11    -both arguments are correct? (don't they have to be contradicting - to be an argument?)

is it a possible argument if both are correct? But as far as silly people go,  both arguments could be wrong!
But, how is the computer supposed to work it out, that is the mystery.
Might be a case for 80's expert systems!

[Freddy]

Hmm, isn't that kind of logic for comparing states though, not validating arguments against each other?

In other words shouldn't A and B be points taken into consideration to resolve the argument rather than using them to compare arguments themselves?

Further, going by the example if they were like this:

A = I argue that red is a colour
B = I argue that blue is a colour

They are arguments and they are both correct, so they are not contradictory, but then this proves nothing, which is the point I am trying to make.

Sorry been a while since I looked at logic