Idiotic Arguing or Intellectual Debate

 http://www.buzzquotes.com/debate-quotes

                To be perfectly honest, I don't know Dani Reynolds. However, I think they bring up an interesting idea regarding the nature of communication in disagreements. Reynolds' claim, a vital piece in any debate, is that smart people debate while idiots just engage in a shouting match. While the choice of words could be considered a bit crass and, therefore, not particularly effective argumentation, Reynolds succinctly summarizes a key difference between true communication and simple noise during disagreements. All too common is the stereotypical argument depicted by Hollywood with screaming and flying objects as a result of extreme emotion and an acute lack of self-control. Such fights certainly do not lead to an intelligent discussion or beneficial solution.  "Idiot" is a derogatory term, generally branding someone as a fool or lacking mental ingenuity. Reynolds clearly associates "idiots" with arguing, perpetuating the idea that arguing is simply loud yelling and irrationality. For its purpose, Reynolds' pointed choice of words is effective as it draws from the audience's preconceived definition of arguing and debating.
                The word "argue" clearly bears the connotation of a bad disagreement that may involve yelling and other displays of anger and irrationality. However, experts in communication may assert that the word or action of "arguing" is not, by nature, bad but rather has been assigned such a definition by people. At its basic level, true argumentation is more historically and accurately described as a process that attempts to validate beliefs, perspectives, or values, according to Critical Thinking and Communication by Inch and Tudor. In truth, proper argumentation is what most would describe as debate-rational, calm, intellectual discussion. As Inch and Tudor assert, it requires a claim or assertion to be presented, a context that defines and clarifies both sides, and standards or rules that guide the discussion. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of effective argumentation and healthy debate is the use of critical thinking. This key function within argumentation is precisely why Reynolds asserts that intellectuals can debate-they utilize critical thinking and include evidence to support their assertions. Intellectual automatically brings with it the assumption of heightened intelligence and reasoning skills.  While Reynolds' wording might be considered hostile, the vocabulary chosen bears with it connotations that effectively drive home the point that there is a vast difference between what we often define as arguing and calm, logical debate. In doing so, Reynolds also draws a distinction between the parties that engage in these two different types of conflict-the intellectual versus the idiot-and, therefore, calls each person to examine how they approach communication during disagreements. No one wants to be an idiot.