Discussion is "examination by taking things apart". Usually in a discussion, people exchange ideas.

Argument is "statements and reasoning in support of a proposition." An argument is a disagreement between two or more people. It is often backed by evidence.

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/bailey/data/answers/2-1.pdf

I agree with Nageswara and Kamal for the differentiation  between discussion and argument.

I agree with above answers.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary there is some difference between arguing and discussion.

An argument is defined as 1. "A discussion of differing point of view;

2. A quarrel; a dispute

3. a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth of falsehood

b. A persuasive reason"

To discuss is defined as 1. "To speak with others about; talk over

2. To examine (a subject) in speech or writing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXRPFQHTajM

http://dawnypawny.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/02/3705770-what-is-the-difference-between-an-argument-and-a-discussion

Discussion is a more congenial and cordial exchange of thoughts, pertaining to a particular issue while argument is an aggressive assertion of thoughts on part of the participant parties.

I am agree with the answer of Prof. Kamal Eddin Bani-Hani. 

***At a same time I feel that,

The Argument comes "statements and reasoning in support of a proposition." An argument can be a fact used as evidence to show that something is true, like a study that shows exercise improves certain health conditions — an argument for being more active. Argument also means "a discussion between people who have contrary views."

The Discussion comes "examination by taking things apart," and when you're having a discussion with someone on a complicated topic, it's like you're taking it apart and trying to understand it. Usually in a discussion, people exchange ideas. 

As an academician I know simply that very often discussion degenerate into argument based on personal beliefs.Discussion is based on figures, evidence and  is logical. Argument is just shouting on the top of one's voice to impress what is the position of the person.

There are 2 wisdoms concerning an argument: 1)" The best way to win an argument is to avoid it". 2) "An argument is one thing you will never win. If you win, you lose; if you lose, you lose".

The argument is "usually" a heated debate between people having conflicting views, with each party entrenched to its stand.

On the other hand, a discussion is examination by partition of things with the aim of understanding & drawing conclusions with an open mind & with a logical approach.

Scholars, who achieved postgraduate degrees, are "usually" more inclined to discussions rather than arguments & they know that arrival at the truth is unrelated to the "louder" voice used in "petty" arguments.

The terms argument and discussion differ and overlap in some ways. However, care should be taken to not use them interchangeably without weighing the implications in the given context.

In one sense, an argument can refer to a dispute or disagreement, but in a broader sense, it usually refers to a statement or proposition that is backed by evidence. In the second sense, such arguments can be the basis of dialogic literacy, where discussions are key. Usually, a 'good' discussion encompasses varying points of view, which are ideally grounded in sound reasoning-- thus calling for 'good' arguments. Ideally, we should uphold the value of sound arguments and discussions to thoroughly examine an issue, to steer clear of superficiality or purely emotional decisions. However, when that is carried to the extent of pursuing it to just prove the other side wrong, it merely works as an ego booster, making us lose sight of greater goals. In such scenarios, arguments can be counterproductive and discussions failed, thus calling for conflict resolution contingencies.

There are also discussions, where arguments are less important, and listening is more. As the saying goes, we often don't listen to understand, we listen to reply. The idea is to place greater focus on the issues we care for, and less focus on ourselves. In the end its not about winning or losing (unless its officially a debate),  but about shared victories and deeper understanding.

Dear All

Thanks so much for your insightful and clear answers. I think what clearly comes out is that in case of discussion, there is some kind of restraint on one's own interest by each party concerned; rather the parties try to thrash out the issues in more logical ways and how they could proceed finding out solutions. In case of argument, each party tries  to take a position (or side) and argues for that position/side, like a lawyer does in a court of law. That is why in labour negotiations in India, the law seeks to keep the lawyers away as they have a tendency to legalize or juridify the discussion.

In addition to the valuable contributions of the colleagues, I would like to add: discussing a matter means that you have time and not willing to reach to something, while argument means that you do not have time to spend listening to the other opinion and want him to follow you directions; a big difference between the tow concepts.

Can we also say that argument is concerned with 'who' is right and discussion is concerned with 'what' is right? And, that disovering 'what' helps the parties to reconcile faster.

Discussion is an exchange of knowledge;

an argument an exchange of ignorance.

Robert Quillen

Yes dear @Debi, discussions are better than argument! Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the author of attached paper says in his second chapter "DISCUSSIONS ARE BETTER THAN ARGUMENTS" : "On the other hand, in a discussion there is no winner because the discussion is meant for revealing the facts. Discussion is helpful and it is also healthy. Moreover, through discussion you can look at a situation little differently so your perception of the situation can be widened. In an argument you may not notice any particular facts, but, in a discussion you can see the other side properly. In a discussion there is no victory, there is only an understanding." Very good!

In a discussion we exchange ideas (e.g. complicated topics) whereas argument is a disagreement between two or more people about a fact.  Some examples of topics which can be discussed as well as argued for are as follows

1. Are exams bad for children?

2. Has the Arab spring failed?

3. Should 16-year-olds get the vote?

References

1. Are exams bad for children: Teachers Stephanie Schneider and Matt Christison go head to head.(Argument)(Discussion).New Internationalist, July-August, 2013, Issue 464, p.30(3) 

2. Has the Arab spring failed? Writer and academic Myriam Francois-Cerrah and journalist Noreen Sadik go head-to-head.(Argument)(Discussion) . New Internationalist, Oct, 2013, Issue 466, p.30(3) 

3. Should 16-year-olds get the vote? Politics academic Andrew Mycock and UK youth parliament member Chante Joseph go head-to-head.(Argument)(Discussion) . New Internationalist, Sept, 2013, Issue 465, p.30(3)

Discussion has a positive flavor while argument has a negative flavor! We have a choice which suits our taste more :))

Dear Ljubomir

How nice is your thread quoting Swami Dayanand Saraswati suggesting that discussion tends to widen the horizon of understanding by bringing in to the more facts, which enable a party to see the other's point of view more objectively.

Dear Jaya and Nages, from the view point of objectivity, what you have said is acceptable that discussion has a positive flavour and argument has a negative flavour; for the latter is an insistance of being right, and there is no willingness to see the situation holositically.

Dear Nages' thread quoting Robert Quillen  is in the same sense, whereby the former can be sen as signifying knowledge and the latter as reflecting ignorance.

Dear Golam. Thanks for adding further clarity through interesting illustration of situtions where the two terms are differentiated. Thanks also for adding the interesting references.

disccussion have an end. say, in any forum, a topic is discussed and come to a conclusion. once we reach consensus discussion willbe over. decision taken in the discussion will be be result that all agee.  

argument can be endless. say, in any argumant, a topic is discussed and no consensus is reached. argementwill not be ended. argument cannot have an agreement for all to follow. 

When a person argue over something, it does not naturally follow that he/she will arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. However, when a person discuss a particular topic, he/she will arrive at a conclusion.

Discussions are fruitful but arguments are often biased and may lead to a chaotic situation

Discussions can be healthy, since they have the potential to build relationships and dialogue and thus result in a "win" for everyone. On the other hand, arguments are rarely good. Why? They are forceful attempts to change another person’s point of view, and thus result in a "winner" and a"loser." Arguments always cause some damage, even if you "win."

The threads of dear Mohamed and Mahmoud distinguish the two concepts in terms of  their reach--suggesting that while discussion has the ability to lead to a conclusion, argument can go on endlessly. Many thanks for both of you for bringing in this dimension.

  Dear Sufia suggest that  the former could be fruitful and the latter being biased could lead to a chaotic situation. Thanks Sufia, what you say is so true.

Dear Issam's distinction is in  terms of the former having the capability to lead to  a win-win, and the latter is an attmpt to produce a win-lose situation. That is absolutely correct.

Dear Shafig's thread suggests that argument reflects parties having contrary views; in discussion people are exchanging views, possibily to reach a wiser conclusion. Thanks Shafig also for taking us to the historical evolution of the two terms and for the interesting attachment.

Discussion is a personal information, sharing and other's view on the topic, learning process..

Argument is a process through which you try to prove "You are right..your view and your opinion is right"

Dear Debi, this is very important question and not easy to answer briefly. Because there are misconception between dialogue and other concepts such as discussion and argument. Although, dialogue needs to respect the culture and ideology differences and diversity, it is sometimes using the persuasive power, relying mainly on the argument. For example, I say in my opinion the dialogue, conversation, discussion, debate, discussion, debate, deliberation, persuasion, conviction, and intimacy, are very crucial for scientific argument. It must be the goal of the argument is a request for the right. This what I call it Ethics of objectivity which require the following criterion:

1 - Verification before issuing a ruling.

2 - Honesty in transport.

3 - Scientific integrity.

4 - Not to generalize.

5 - Praise for the other party.

6 - Not to antagonize the other opinion.

7 - Non-curses and insults and gentle as possible.

8 - To focus on the qualities of being more names.

9 - Waiver of the dialogue as much as possible.

in research we may discuss our result but still we need to argue for accepting the hypothesis. 

Dear Hashem

Thanks  for your powerful thread signifying that argument is not necessarily to be seen in all situations as negative, but can very much have  a purposiveness too, which you have shown so clearly while we argue for our hypothesis. Your 9 points in support of Ethics of objectivity are also very enlightening and are bound to lead to a better discussion on Discussion and Argument. Thanks Hashem

Dear Debi

So far it's been a discussion we are having here, lets hope it stays that way.

Regards,

Issam

Dear Issam

You mean "we should not argue about what we are discussing!"

My opinion is already expressed partially by dear Issam Sinjab, Nishant Kumar and respected Shafig Ibrahim Al-Haddad. I would just add:

Discussion may include exchange of personal information as well as any topic of mutual interest about which you may or may not have sufficient knowledge. Therefore, the purpose of discussion can include learning and convincing.  However, to argue, sufficient knowledge  is a prerequisite and it's purpose is exclusively to convince  others.

Yes dear @Issam: So far it's been a discussion we are having here, lets hope it stays that way.

Dear Mahmoud

You can if you want to but I will not be part of it.

We are in a free world. People are free to discuss as well argue. It depends upon what is our preference. We all do both,  depending upon the context and the situation.

Dear Asmat

Why do we have to argue to convince others? I am sure you can still convince others by discussing. Consider teacher-student situation, teacher not only has sufficient knowledge  but in general has far more knowledge than his students, does the teacher argue or discuss with his students a point of disagreement? People who can convince by discussing, as opposed to arguing,  are stronger, talented and do a far more effective damage-free job at convincing others. What do you think dear Asmat?

Dear Issam

I won't neither. But we should know that there are two kinds of argument: Oral and Written. 

Oral argument intimately involves the human body. Pitch, rate, gesture, and tone of voice, are all forms of nonverbal communication that introduce the potential for misunderstandings.

Written argument generally is clearer. Consequently, the friction that is possible from verbal interaction plays a large role in (mis)understanding.

A discussion is not specific enough to be debatable, although discussion informs debate. People debate the issues to resolve them. A debate is an argument to resolve a proposition, which is a highly specific statement that can be resolved by rules of engagement. Aristotle is credited with having said "An argument is any claim that requires proof to convince others to advocate that which the advocate advocates."

Therefore, conflict resolution is better served when the parties can isolate the competing issues to a more specific proposition that can be proved in  balanced and formulaic argument process, whereby the rules of conduct are accepted by both parties prior to debate. 

In addition to my above response, a classic text on the subject is by Andrew Weaver and Ordean Ness (1957: 63) Fundamentals and Forms of Speech, their Chapter 8. This book is also on

Google book link:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=PqfLU_PmIore8gGt64CQBw&id=yrZJAAAAMAAJ&dq=weaver+and+ness+%281957%29&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=discussion+and+debate

Dear Issam Sinjab

Thanks for your comments on my post.

The example you have cited is quite selective. Therefore, I see it as part of argument rather than discussion. Teacher-student situation is not fit to quote. Why? Because there is vertical hierarchy between both means teacher is presumed as superior/senior and student as junior/learner.  Similarly, Supervisor- Subordinate can't be good example. The real discussion is, in which both parties are of equal ranks/status. For example, RG users like us.

I agree, employees who do not argue enjoy their jobs because they surrender most the time due to vertical hierarchies.

Discussions in general are healthy and are likely have the potential to build good relationships.

On the other hand, arguments are also good provided they are grounded on the facts. However they rarely are good because many a times they are forceful attempts to change another person’s point of view. This makes one look winner and the other a loser.

So in the likelihood of there is a disagreement it is better to turn that into a discussion so that everybody wins.

Dear Nages

What you say is so true. No one likes to be forced to change one's views. And, that is the attempt made in an arugument even when what is argued is correct, so it is less liked. Discussion, on the other hand, creates a good feeling as one learns new facts and positions after being part of  the discussion, and that too in a non-threatening environment.

Dear Issam

In a student-teacher relationship, odten in the Asian world, the two are not on equal footing. The teacher is likley to have  some superior position in the relationship, which may in cases may be covertly  coercive to the student even when the student's position is right. The student therefore may have have to argue her/his position, as the teacher could be overarching on her/him showing the weight of the authority. The students may have to bring evidence along with the argument to prove her/his point. I have seen that happening in India.

Dear Reginald, I like both your threads, including the attachment. Your point is quite well taken. Your point on debate is very interesting, and is symptomatic of a new perspective that lends greater respect to 'argument.' In fact, debate is one area where argument gets a lot of attention, as both sides are trying to argue for or against the motion. And, the evidence put forward by both the sides can even help even a fuller and more comprehensive discussion on the subject. Well said!

To negotiate you need to have a detailed understanding of the overall culture of those involved, as well as the culture of their organization. Negotiation is always the starting point, but doomed to faiure if the negotiator does not have the respect of BOTH parties. In a case I heard about years ago, negotiations had been deadlocked for days and the Negotiator was at the point of giving up, when it occurred to him/her to forget to give them breakfast and lunch and leave them in a closed room where there was no access to phones etc. The two parties united together in their aggravation with the negotiator, who became the common enemy. On entering the room in the afternoon they stood up united against the negotiator who surrendered immediately and brought them food. They conquered the negotiator so to speak and their victory led to happy full stomachs, comraderie and the outcome the negotiator needed, a peaceful end to the conflict between the parties. The negotiator was very skilled and turned a conflict into a discussion, A debate indicates there are two definite "sides" as does argument, both indicate opposing forces whilst discussion indicates mediation of points of view.

Dear Cheryl

Thanks for your very interesting story. The  term negotitor that you are using in your thread is actually known as mediator in negotiation theory. It is also called concilitor in some countries. But both in debate and discussion mediators are not needed normally. The discussion is usually  bipartite. But your story is so interesting. It suggests that a skilled mediator can convert argument in discussion. Great intervention, Cheryl. Thanks.

The discussion is a conversation between several people in a topic or theme is examined to solve or explain. Argue  it is a practice of giving a series of statements in support of any statement, acceptance of which raises some doubts. Such doubts may be or who argues also others. For these reasons, this practice assumes sometimes the existence of an argumentative context of discussion or dialogue. That is, to argue, try to solve our conflicts of opinion.

So when we try to argue listener produce conviction in us, that is, to accept the claim on which it is argued. Fundamentally, we argue to resolve our disputes by rational means. It is true that in the course of a discussion, the participants try to impose their position. However, such taxation can not be at any cost and, especially, should not be imposed by force. Impose only those claims that are acceptable after being subjected to a discussion.

In addition, this discussion should be made by procedures to ensure that laaceptación is the result of support provided by other statements already accepted.

There is a minor difference between thses two..

You wont be even knowing when wolud your discussion will turn into argument n then fight, if you are talking on subject which one likes and other doesn't..

I think discussion is meant to arrive at a point of view through a  consensus whereas arguments are usually a defence of strongly held, opposing and sometimes exclusive points of view.

Dear Debi, often an academic has to act as the negotiator or mediator in discussions with students on a different level to that in a corporate. Often students and Lecturers have very definite ideas on a specific subject. An interesting point made by an old teacher of mine is that for a discussion to work one must leave one's ego at the door and not tie one's point of view to one's ego as this is where arguments often begin.

Dear all dear Cheryl

I fully agree with Cheryl's  teacher. Indeed, ego is the main  culprit for spoliling all discussions and even arguments. In fact, I am presently in Denmark teaching a course here  to MBA students. Just today I reminded my students that people  management strategy is not a rocket science and is very easy to learn. But it is most difficult to practice, more than launching a rocket, all that is so  because of big egos of people. I advise them to make their personal vision, and managing their ego as part of the agenda for realizing their vision.

I want to add that in my part of the world (India) teachers' ego is normally very high, and teachers sometimes even give wrong answers to the student's queries due to their ego problem, To conclude, if discussion is informed by ego it is likely to vitiate the purpose towards unintended directions.

The arguments are generally on debatable issue but the discussion is on a common issue. For instance, a discussion is on 'framing of new policy' but the arguments are on 'need for new policy'.

I agree with dear @Cheryl that "Negotiation is always the starting point, but doomed to faiure if the negotiator does not have the respect of BOTH parties. "

This lively conversation illustrates the importance of specificity. Conflicts are not necessarily between only two parties; and the parties to a conflict are not always equally able to participate in discussions and offer arguments; international conflicts are fundamentally different form teacher-student conflicts; and so on.

One thing we can say with respect to arguments and discussions is that nuances only matter if a decision is at hand, over which people have differences that create conflict. Neither differences nor discussions and arguments about them are worrisome unless the parties are interdependent and have to arrive to a joint decision despite different interests, perceptions and values. Then negotiation happens when the parties think they can obtain a better result by engaging with the others than by acting unilaterally. 

i agree with the above answers

i had enough discussion - in these columns no body argued

Prof V.S Muralidharan,

Your one-line contribution is  brilliant & summed it all.

discussion is good   - argument cannot  help to solve issues

agreed   kamal

In discussion, we are trying to see how our thought fits into the thoughts of of others. In an argument we try to show how the thoughts of others MUST fit into our thought

evidence is the main differentiator I think, that an argument must have, while parties may be talking mostly about their perceptions in a discussion. 

Can be discussed without arguments, but you can not argue without knowledge

Discussion is simply the act of talking about something in order to exchange ideas or opinions. However, an argument is a discussion in which disagreements are expressed. An argument is an exchange of ignorance and expression of temper whereas a discussion is an exchange of knowledge and a lesson of logic. A discussion does bring up the possibility of opposing points of view and thereby leading to an argument because of the objections that can be raised during discussion.

@Yogesh,

why should partners in a discussion who use arguments, be ignorant? May be there is another point of view, which wasn´t taken into acount yet.

Dear Debi,

I noticed that while discussion people try to use similar or even common set of terms and moderate level of emotional expression, but while argument they use specific own terms and higher level of expression of emotions. There is also lot of mental shortcuts on the ground of potential argument and poor translations of meanings.

Dear Beata,

my big problem is, to connect arguments or discussion with emotions. If you try to argue, you want to convince your partners by a fact or a supposed fact. Emotions?

Dear Hanno,

I have another picture of you.  This  is your personal beauty,  emotional responding to reality. Dear Hanno, I know many of your previous comments and your rapid emotional reactions in face of "something" you are sensitive to. I appreciate your sharp way of responding.

In my case discussing or arguing depends on the discussed phenomena and discussion partner. I have experience in my professional  field of disabilities with difficult discussion partners, for example a bit obsessed or paranoid  about ideas or with delusions. In such cases, it happened,  I gave up convincing partner to anything from my point of view.

In other, especially academic areas I try to find  needed facts (for ex. convincing the dean about something) and learn something from his/her site and also  keep moderate emotional level, even facing provocations.

Dear Beata,

thanks for your response. My note should be without emotions, just with rational arguments.;-)

Your example with the ill people, where you stopped your rational talking and behaviour, is not the normal case if we start discussions. It´s full of wisdom, to stop your discussions, if you are sure to gain no effect at all.

Dear Beata,

I forgot a comment to my known emotional reactions. These reactions are learned reactions to beauty or to dreadful situations. They protect me or delight me in many cases. I like them and don´t want to trash this ability.

Dear Hanno,

Good points, but. I have not stopped  my rational talking or rational behavior towards mentally ill persons at all., dear @Hanno,  I stopped convincing them to think more critically after 2-3 hours of my failures. I tried.

Dear Beata, you seem to be a very impatient teacher! ;-)))

Thank you, dear Hanno,

I appreciate your sense of humor :-)

In my understanding, a discussion is where two parties air out their opinions about the same issue, dissecting their different opinions on the pros and cons and then draw a central conclusion after analysis. An argument is where two parties have different opinions on the same issue and each party maintains their position on the issue, keeps justifying their stand and in most cases there is no conclusions on the way forward. In most cases, the issue at hand is never dissected for pros and cons and the parties may not reason out the points from the others, leaving the issue hanging and without direction.

I would say  a discussion may be more open and general , an argument tends to be specific . Arguments are usually confrontational , discussions may strive to reach a mutual agreement.

For me discussion is an argument without disagreement, while argument is a discussion over disagreement. So simple.

As someone who has never trusted management, it seems clear that, far from working to resolve conflict, managers often take sides and use their authority against those whose views  differ from their own. Yet, leaving the tendentious framing of the question to one side, both discussion and argument can be performed by one person or several: I may discuss a topic with colleagues or students or discuss it in a paper; alternatively, I may engage in argument with others about a topic or write an argument about it in a paper. Taking discussion and argument in their collective senses, the differences and similarities between them vary from one discipline to another.

Professor Barry Hindess, Your contribution is great. Managers who stand at the same distance from conflicting sides & managers who allow you to differ with them in even one viewpoint ... are a very rare "commodity", indeed !  Some think that the policy of (Divide & Rule) is a "smart" one & some are "spoiled" easily by the authority they got.

discussion is the platform for clarifying arguments. there is no way to clarify arguments or challenge them without discussing them. the discussion can have different characteristics and can be classified in different categories and they facilitate introducing the arguments.

A discussion is usually a dialog between two or more people where their is a centralized topic and each person contributes or exchanges ideas.. An argument is when one or more of those people attempt to force their opinion or views on the other often displaying anger.

Some good books about the argument, discussion, debate...!

http://books.google.rs/books?id=rIAfrUo5CiIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+argument&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K0TiU5HzCuL5yQORzoKgDg&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20argument&f=false

http://books.google.rs/books?id=AorftvYASHEC&dq=the+argument&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K0TiU5HzCuL5yQORzoKgDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ

Dear Ljubomir, Very interesting books. Thank you.

>

I fully share the author narrative but he has provided a philosophical viewpoint which itself is not enough to clarify the question. Argument is providing substance to your thoughts while discussion is a broad debate over a set topic. Argument is analytical, precise and concise while discussion is vague.

Dear Debi. S.S, yes there is difference between discussion and argument. Discussion of any issues through light on both positive and negative aspects of the issue in question and the the suggestions to solve problems any but the argument advocates the part of the issue that is much related and enable to solve the problem. for example wage-cut issue.

@ Hanno

Arguments are a bit of inevitability as far as partnerships/long-term relationships are concerned. No matter how well you get on, how much you have in common or how much you love each other, you will argue a lot, at length; sometimes very loudly. If you put two people together for long enough, they’ll find something to argue about. In fact, in a lot of ways, arguments are a good that suggest passion; they show that you each care enough about what the other thinks or says or does to get worked up about it, to become furious. The alternative is that you simply don’t care enough to argue with each other, and apathy is rarely part of a successful relationship. Of course, constant arguments aren’t much better than none at all, but there’s definitely a happy middle ground to be found.

http://www.primermagazine.com/2015/love/what-every-man-needs-to-know-about-handling-arguments-in-a-long-term-relationship

Let's put it this way: there is a large debate (discussion) on the fundamental causes of poor economic performance in sub-Saharan Africa. Some scholars argue (argument) that the colonial legacy is the main cause, whereas others put forward the low level of human capital. And for others, the poor economic performance is to do with geographic conditions.

So, in this case

DISCUSSION == the fundamental causes of poor economic performance in SSA

ARGUMENT== (1) colonial legacy, (2) low level of human capital, (3) geographic conditions

So, to answer your question, I would say: methods of conflict resolution is the discussion, whereas (1) Negotiation, (2) use of force, are arguments

'Discussion' and 'Argument'

Discussion refines the knowledge and views of the people and all the participants become winners at the end. There are times it may be fruitless but even in such cases it leaves something to learn. But argument leads to hostility and makes the concerned parties divided. It leads to misunderstanding as it does not cover the truth in full. It is one sided and partial and it will create only one winner...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/discussion-argument-johnson-luko?trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A577811291479387489353%2CVSRPtargetId%3A6113532749006516224%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary&trk=vsrp_influencer_content_res_name

The discussion is led by one of the parties to persuade a certain idea of either controversy is the tyranny of the two parties his opinion.

Discussion is an exchange of knowledge, argument is an exchange of ignorance. – Robert Quillen

Discussion is to reach a reasonable solution or conclusion, while argument is to enhance anger and hostility to each other. – Myself

A Discussion is a balanced argument while An Argument is a one sided Discussion

Not always argument has negative meaning. Sometimes has positive discussion using reasoning. a process of reasoning; series of reasons:composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse. While discussion involves consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate

I really enjoyed this valuable and informative question. I am really grateful to Dr. Debi S. Saini for starting it.

I like the reply

"Discussion is a dialogue between two parties to reach the truth, while argumentation is trying to convince the other party that we alone have the truth and the other party should believe us and so we can claim accomplishment".

At first - Happy New Year !

In my view discussion is an exchange of arguments between at least two parties, who want to achieve some sort of conclusion. Argument is a fact that is being presented by any party of the discussion to demonstrate the superiority of the thinking over thinking and arguments brought by other party(parties).