>>>>This is a piece of text derived from a text I found on the internet (http://www.siena.org/library/sssum98/argument.html). I'm not implying here that it has become very difficult here on the UT to have an argument. But sometimes I'm really surprised by the negative reactions to arguments, here or on other forums like Foxite. What's your opinion?
>>>
>>>Don't be ridiculous! It's dead easy to have an argument here on the UT - some people do nowt but bicker all day, for the sake of bickering AFAICS. And that is what you were implying. There are no negative reactions to arguments. I doubt if you are surprised. That's my opinion, which is superior to yours.
>>
>>For the sake of bickering... hmmm
>>
>>That text I found as a result of searching for the meaning of 'for the sake of arguments' or 'for arguments sake'. I have always thought I understood that phrase, but yesterday I felt unsure. I haven't found a good explanation of the phrase. Since you're superior to me (well, in this case for sure), perhaps you can explain its meaning?!
>
>
>You can do many things "for the sake of it", e.g. "eating for eating's sake". It means to do something even if it is not warranted/needed, just so you can enjoy doing it, or doing it mechanically.
>
>"I'm not hungry; I'm just eating for the sake of eating" could mean "Although I don't need food I'd better pack some in for when I do" or "... cos everyone else is" or "...cos I don't know when my next meal will be". An incessant cleaner (like my aunt) would clean all day, not cos things were dirty, just cos she loved to clean ("... for cleaning's sake")
>
>In several cases on the UT I see these petty, useless, bickering arguments going on all day, with personal insults, slights and attacks, and no one is better off by the end. Seems to me people arg. not cos there's an important issue/debate, but just cos they like it.

Okay, thanks for this explanation. It's now clearer to me why I always feel somewhat uncomfortable when someone reacts with this phrase. It is always obvious that the other person thinks the discussion continues too long due to unimportant arguments brought in or because all arguments have already been said before. However, this may actually not be the impression I share.

The relevance of an argument may be low or absent in the eyes of some and high in the eyes of someone else.
The fact that an argument has been mentioned earlier or in another message is for some reason to say it therefore need not be mentioned a second time and for others it is legitimate to mention it elsewhere again.

Although I like to argue, I'm definitely not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm arguing as long as I can think of a valid argument, valid in the context, that, in my eyes, needs to be addressed. My evaluation of the importance of mentioning or repeating the argument apparently frequently differs from others'. I'm arguing for the sake of truth finding. Only in certain cases such truth finding must 'wait', for example if there's a threat of physical, psychological or social harm.