There must be a chance that you are wrong. There must certainly be that possibility. It must be entertained in your thinking, even as a small thought. This key perspective, is the difference between argument and a debate.
An argument usually is a heated discussion of opposing views which rarely involves any real exchange of knowledge, but rather is a downward spiral, starting from a conversation, to an exchange of sometimes offensive words. The fundamental issue that causes this is the lack of understanding of the possibility that even if one is sure, there is still a chance of an error in one’s perspective. When this fact is taken into consideration, one tends to listen to the opposing view with a little more patience. This allows for the comprehension and analysing of the opposing view, and then the delivery of a well thought-out response.
A debate on the other hand, is an argument that is a lot more formal, with both parties offering well articulated points. Debates are usually in formal public meeting settings. This approach to discussion allows both the debaters and those viewing, to properly analyse the points raised. It allows them arrive at logical conclusions or responses. Only in this way is any truth achieved. The term debate can also be used to refer to discussions that allows the amicable exchange of opinions, with the purpose of convincing a person, of opposing view, to one’s perspective.
The conundrum that a healthy approach to arguments causes is this. For one to argue, it is assumed that one has to reach a strong sense of conviction about a point. A conviction so strong that one feels willing and capable of convincing another of his point of view. If then this assurance exists in one, then the room for a sense of possible incorrectness will virtually not exist. Such doubt will not have allowed the initial action of debating (or arguing). In other words, if I am sure of what I am telling you, without a doubt, then I cannot entertain the thought of being wrong. If I have that thought, then I will not be pressing my point. This makes debating almost an ouroboros situation. One where for A to occur, B has to exist. But if B exist then A will most-likely not truly occur.
To walk this thin line without slipping into the field of either a total and unwavering confidence, or a pool of doubt, is a task ascribed to the most ideal of minds. But of that, we are far off. Therefore, in our ever discussion, debate and conversation, we should thoroughly in it, check for every incline, that will withhold from us, the gift of learning we were wrong. It is a duty we all owe to the pool of Knowledge the human race holds.