hno:
The first two definitions that pop up on Webster's. I don't see the word angry or mad in there. So it depends how you want to define arguing. To fit your argument or in a general sense. Again like I sad... SEMANTICS.
Definition of argument
1a: the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing : ARGUMENTATION
b: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
Best Reply so far in the thread
In a sporting event like football....the mass of a play(s) x Velocity (elapsed time) can either initiate new momentum OR slow current opposing momentum.
So a TOUCHDOWN (6 pts) delivered within just a few seconds or a couple minutes does the above moreso than say, a 15 yd non-scoring run on your end of the field.
That *new* momentum might be accelerated by more positive events in a shorter amount of time.
Or it might be *reversed* if the opponent delivers their own event...or series of events.
Fair to say that most broadcasters overly employ the word "momentum" by assigning momemtum shifts to just one or two positive events.....when those admittedly positive events are far outweighed by opponents' much larger stack
So one team crushes in first half....rolls up a 24-0 lead. Announcers rightly declare, "Team A has all the momentum!"
Second team opens second half with two scores to make it 24-10
Announcers declare, "Team B has all the momentum now!"
But in fact, since the overall contest has a finite time limit, Team A may be allowing some movement and even mildly conceding a couple scores in exchange for burnt clock.
Thus they have not *lost* momentum....they are simply managing the hand they have created. If Team B fails to complete the rally, it is suggested "They lost their momentum"....but in fact they just ran out of time.
In all such discussion, momentum was real.
The challenge is Who will create and maintain the most consistent level of forward momentum during the 60 clock minutes. In nearly all cases, that team wins the final score
As for the semantics of the word 'argument' vs 'discussion'
I have noticed that if either of following two phrases is included, it's most often deemed a discussion:
1) I might be wrong
2) You could be right
If these two are absent, either in word or intent, it's maybe not even fair to deem it an argument. Mayhaps more fair to just describe it as two guys making individual speeches
I have noticed that if either of following two phrases is included, it's most often deemed a discussion:
1) I might be wrong
2) You could be right
If these two are absent, either in word or intent, it's maybe not even fair to deem it an argument. Mayhaps more fair to just describe it as two guys making individual speeches
As for the semantics of the word 'argument' vs 'discussion'
I have noticed that if either of following two phrases is included, it's most often deemed a discussion:
1) I might be wrong
2) You could be right
If these two are absent, either in word or intent, it's maybe not even fair to deem it an argument. Mayhaps more fair to just describe it as two guys making individual speeches
You've met me in person Barman. Did I seem like an argumentative difficult guy to be around?
A discussion (the term Enfuego is arguing is the appropriate term for this thread) does not necessarily contain two opposing viewpoints. It can, but it does not have to. And many discussions do not contain two different viewpoints. That's why this thread should be more appropriately labeled an argument or a disagreement.
Is this thread a discussion? Sure. Does it contain two opposing viewpoints? At least. Are people "arguing" their viewpoints? According to the definition of "argue", absolutely.
You can go ahead and continue to argue against Merriam Webster, but you would continue being ignorant and stubborn.
You did not seem so in our personal meeting, no. Nor so in our occasional text msg exchanges past few years
You do give strong impression within Rx Forum of a dog who refuses to let go......more frequent use of one or both my cited phrases above likely would serve you .....and also anyone else who posts in this venue
I love debating on forums. Yet, I seldom do IRL. Maybe only with close friends because we both know we won't offend each other. But I have zero interest in that sort of thing with casual friends, at work, etc.
What someone represents on the forum, may not be how they act or conduct themselves IRL. I think that's obvious. So I'm not sure what point Enfuego is trying to make by bringing up a meeting with Old Man Barman. Completely irrelevant to how he conducts himself here.
Momentum (in the sense of sports) is closely tied to confidence.
How can confidence be appropriately measured scientifically? Can it? Can love? Can any "feelings"?
As we all know, the mental aspect of sports and how it can effect outcomes is HUGE.
When big swings within a game happen, we as sports fans might refer to it as "momentum". Which is obviously tied closely to things like confidence, adrenaline, fatigue, etc.
As I mentioned before in this thread, just because you can't scientifically measure something, does not mean it doesn't exist.
