Civil Discourse Or

[DavidHouston]

Dear Friends,

I have a question regarding how to characterize in Thai the various types of discussions one might have in forums like these. Because the Internet and discussion boards herein are inherently wide-open and essentially unregulated, there are often discussions which get heated to the point of incivility. How can we describe in Thai the difference between civil discourse and uncivil behavior?

Let's start with the meaning of the word "ปะทะ" and its related words. For example, there is "ปะทะคารม [V] debate; dispute; quarrel; squabble; argue", "โต้เถียง [V] argue; debate; dispute", and ,"โต้คารม [V] argue; dispute; debate". And, there may be others.

Here is the question: There are several types of "debates", "discussions", "disagreements", and "disputes". But, I believe, they fall into two categories: friendly and unfriendly; intellectual and academic, civil and respectful, on the one hand, and acerbic and name-calling, uncivil and demeaning, on the other hand. In fact, some exchanges in these forums can be described as "ad hominem arguments". This as many of you know from Logic classes, is where on party makes an argument, not based on reason or logic, but on a personal attack on the other party, quite apart from the issue being discussed. In fact, how might one say in Thai, an "ad hominem argument"? (Maybe something like "ด่าฉอดๆ".)

Let us note that, the distinction is not between passionate arguments or non-passionate arguments. One can feel very strongly about an issue but not get angry or personal with the other party.

So, finally, my question is how does one say in Thai a "friendly, academic, intellectual, civil, rational argument" between disagreeing parties versus the other kind, a "angry, ad hominem, emotional, uncivil, irrational argument" between them?

Thanks for your assistance.