It's this country again. Whenever someone typically states 'They were arguing' then they most likely mean that they were involved in a heated dispute, not really an argument or discussion. Now, when the two people referred to as 'arguing' are teenagers, the argument probably consists of yelling and slamming doors and throwing things :o) Hence my different perception of 'argument' :o)



>>I found your entire discussion on 'arguing' interesting. In my opinion, what you are aiming for is healthy discussion and healthy debate, not an argument. To me, an argument is a very heated debate which turns negative or personal (more like a 'dispute'). However, one can argue certain points in a discussion or debate. I know that technically an argument is a debate or discussion, but I'm accustomed to the word argument being used to really mean a dispute.
>
>Yes, in this case too there's probably a somewhat different perception between the native speakers and the others. This is what I found on Dictionary.com:
>
>Argue, Arguing
>To put forth reasons for or against something: argued for dismissal of the case; argued against an immediate counterattack.
>To engage in a quarrel; dispute.
>
>Argument stresses the advancement by each side of facts and reasons intended to persuade the other side: Emotions are seldom swayed by argument.
>Dispute implies animosity: A dispute arose among union members about the terms of the new contract.
>Controversy applies especially to major differences of opinion involving large groups of people: The use of nuclear power is the subject of widespread controversy.
>
>In Dutch too we have several words for several situations.
>
>To engage in argument - Argumenteren
>To argue - Ruzieën
>To debate - Debatteren
>To have a dispute - Een meningsverschil hebben. Een dispuut hebben.
>Controversy - Controversie
>
>A non-native speaker of Dutch can easily be misinterpreted when using one of those words in the wrong context, leading to problems. That is probably because the words tell something about the emotions too. For example, if A tells to B that C and D were arguing or argued, person B might think that C and D were having a quarrel. That's what you're saying, right?
>
>Here on the UT the border between arguing in the positive sense and arguing in the negative sense is sometimes really only one line thick. It can easily go from good to bad, but with the same ease back from bad to good.