In debate, an argument is a reason or reasons given for or against a particular proposition. Using argumentation involves the process of reasoning, forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and applying these to the proposition under discussion. In this sense, the term "argument" has no negative connotations to it. It is a part of the reasoning process itself; and it helps one to form a position in a logical, reasonable manner.

On the other hand, the word "argument" often carries a negative connotation. In this sense one just "argues" with another by disagreeing or objecting. This type of argument has no solid reasons attached to it. It carries no logical flow. It is merely expressing an opinion that differs from another, but provides no valid reasons why it is right other than the say-so of the individual.

An argument, in the proper sense, is a reasonable and honorable endeavor. However, an "argument" in the negative sense is worthless and frustrating. Let me illustrate the difference:

A proper argument is usually stated as a well thought-out reason. For example, the following is such an argument:

1. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
2. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
3. Therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living.

This is essentially the argument Jesus made on behalf of life after death (Matt. 22:23-32). It is logical and makes a point very well. His stated premises that even the Sadducees would accept; and the conclusion was inevitable. The crowds were astonished. This is an example of a well-reasoned argument.

On the other hand, an "argument," negatively, is often just an interjection of objections. These can vary from "You're wrong" to "You're stupid." Kids are often heard arguing this way. How many times do you hear kids yelling at each other, "Yes!" "No!" Yes!" "No!" "I'm right; you're wrong." There is no sense; there is no reason. It is just a yelling match to see who can hold out the longest.

Yet adults do this, too. In the face of a controversial issue, they may just state an objection and insult the one they object to; but they give no real argument, properly speaking. They may call into question the intelligence of the other person; they may indicate that anyone who can't see it their way is an idiot. But they still offer no logical reason or argumentation for the position they hold. They may be nice about their objection, stating that they just think this is the way it is. But they still make no real argument for or against the proposition. They state a position as if it were a fact, but they give no valid evidence or reason to back it up. Any evidence to the contrary of their position is simply written off with no thought of actually considering it.

I think we are seeing this more and more. Logical argumentation is a difficult process. It requires critical thinking. It requires challenging our own thinking and attempting to formulate a position in a logical and concise manner. It is much easier just to object and leave it at that, feeling frustrated because the other person is just being stubborn. Then, due to their frustration, they will say something to the effect that they don't want to "argue" about this or that. Clearly, they are using "argue" in the negative sense; even though they have not really attempted to make a logical argument, they are ready to quit arguing. And the discussion ends with no one improving for the better.