Introduction

Communication is defined as the means of sending and receiving information. In Douglas Adams’ book, Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy, the Babel fish acts as a sort of deus ex machina that allows communication between all sentient beings of the Universe. The babel fish, once It’s wiggled its way inside your ear canal, conveys thoughts not through a language that is constrained by one’s vocabulary and messy definitions, but through “brainwave energy”. This exceedingly helpful fish conveys not just the definition of feelings as the English word “upset” does, a process intrinsically messy as not everyone has the same definition of “upset,” but instead the true physiological response the speaker has of being upset. – a feeling unlikely to be misunderstood.

Unfortunately, for humans not existing in the timeline of Arthur Dent, we cannot make use of this improbable fish. Instead, we rely on simple, good old-fashioned language. We do this in three main ways: verbal (spoken and written words), nonverbal (body language, facial expressions), and visual (pictures, symbols, colors). Verbal communication includes spoken and written language and is the primary way in which humans convey information, feelings, and ideas. For the latter of those three, often times, ideas and the ideals that create the logical and emotional framework around them can differ greatly. Two individuals can have similar conclusions, but wildly different reasons for reaching them. Or perhaps similar steps of reasoning but wildly different conclusions. Maybe even seemingly different conclusions that are in reality closely aligned but simply misunderstood by one another (*cough* The shortcoming of language, *cough*).

When any of these conflicts emerge, there is disagreement and dispute. Whether the goal is to move past friction for a greater cause (policy creation, business decisions, relationships), to persuade others of your ideas, or simply to seek mutual understanding, humans have an innate drive to resolve these discrepancies. This process is called discourse.

Discourse comes in many different flavors, only some of which lead to meaningful results. The efficacy of any given discourse is also determined by the level at which it occurs. If the two or more parties participating in the discourse are communicating from different levels, it is unlikely a solution will be reached. I will argue in this article that discourse is best defined by five different levels, ranging from small talk at the water cooler to a shouting match at the local Applebee’s. My definition of these levels is as follows, from least to most intense:

Small Talk, Conversation, Discussion, Debate, Argument

The levels of discourse

The following is a breakdown of these levels, the goals of an individual participating in discourse at that level, and traits therein.

1. Small Talk
   • Goal of the participants:
     • Build rapport, signal friendliness, avoid silence, or fill social space with low-stakes interaction. The goal isn’t to exchange or even share deep ideas but to maintain a sense of connection.
   • Traits:
     • Phatic expressions (How’s it going, what’s new)
     • Humor/light exaggeration
     • Filler responses (“oh wow”, “dang,” etc.)
     • Quick shifts of Topic
   • Disagreement
     • Real disagreement is rare due to above stated goals the inherent non-controversial opinions shared at this level
     • Light pushback, playful contradiction, no stakes.
   • Example:
     • Speaker A: “It sure is hot out, isn’t it?”
     • Speaker B: “Eh, I don’t think it’s that bad, last summer felt worse.”
2. Conversation
   • Goal of the participants:
     • Share information, experiences, or personal thoughts; develop connections deeper than small talk allows; explore interests without pressure to persuade.
   • Traits:
     • Storytelling and anecdote sharing
     • Active listening cues (nods, “what happened next?”)
     • Relating personal experience (“That reminds me of when…”)
   • Disagreement
     • Sharing different personal impressions or stories; pushback stays casual, framed as opinion, not challenge.
   • Example:
     • Speaker A: “I heard it’s hot because of that heat dome sitting over the Midwest. Due to smog and CO2 build up, they said.”
     • Speaker B: “Really? I think I heard something about that too. It is July, though… My grandparents would talk about having to spend all day in the river during July”
3. Discussion
   • Goal of the participants:
     • Clarify ideas, examine perspectives, compare reasoning; outcome is usually understanding, not necessarily equity in conclusion
   • Traits:
     • Evidence and examples
     • Clarification questions (“So you’re saying…?”)
     • Restating the other’s point to check understanding
     • Steel-maning
     • “What if” hypotheticals
     • Not every thread of reasoning and logic must be followed to its first principles
   • Disagreement
     • Thoughtful counterpoints, questioning reasoning, introducing evidence; the aim is clarity, not winning.
   • Example:
     • Speaker A: “It’s hot because climate change is making extreme heat more common.”
     • Speaker B: “I’m not sure about that. Some data shows this region has always had heat waves. Maybe it’s more natural cycles than climate change.”
4. Debate
   • Goal of the participants:
     • Persuade or defend a position; test strength of arguments; audience (real or imagined) often matters as much or more as opponent.
   • Traits:
     • Rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, pathos)
     • Formal structure (opening, rebuttal, conclusion)
     • Counterexamples
     • Strategic concessions (“I agree costs are high, but…”)
     • Framing and reframing (“It’s not about cost; it’s about fairness”)
   • Disagreement
     • Structured rebuttal, challenging logic, reframing arguments, aiming to persuade.
   • Example:
     • Speaker A: “This heat wave is clear evidence of climate change. If we don’t transition to renewable energy now, we’ll face even worse summers in the future.”
     • Speaker B: “That’s a weak conclusion. Extreme heat has occurred throughout history. One weather event doesn’t prove climate change. What matters is long-term data, and even then, renewables aren’t the only solution.”
5. Argument
   • Goal of the participants:
     • Win, vent frustration, or dominate. Less about ideas, more about identity, emotions, or perceived stakes.
   • Traits:
     • Raising voice, interruptions
     • Ad hominem attacks or sarcasm
     • Cherry-picking or exaggeration
     • Emotional appeals (“You don’t care about anyone but yourself”)
     • Ultimatums (“If you don’t, then…”)
   • Disagreement
     • Emotional escalation, blame, personal attack, identity conflict, goal shifts
   • Example:
     • Speaker A: “This heat wave is happening because the politicians you support keep deregulating industry and ignoring climate policy!”
     • Speaker B: “That’s ridiculous! Your side is just as bad! You whine about the heat but block every realistic solution. You don’t even understand how the economy works!”

How to classify a discourse

Of course, language is messy, and this list is no exception. There will always be examples of discourse that do not fit neatly into any single category. However, the same would be true even if I drew up forty levels. The five outlined here are not exhaustive, but they provide a sturdy enough framework to classify most human interactions and explore the differences between them and the source of much conflict.

Additionally, bad actors and poor rhetorical techniques can appear at any level of discourse. The existence of non-sequiturs, red herrings, straw men, circular reasoning, or any other of the multitude of logical fallacies does not by itself move a conversation into argument territory. What matters is how those prompts are received and rebutted.

Take our two friends from above discussing climate change:

Speaker A: “We need to take drastic action against climate change before it destroys our way of life.”

The keen listener will notice that this statement begs the question. It presupposes that climate change is inherently bad, which is precisely what might be under debate.

In a Conversation (Level 2), this is rarely an issue. Stakes are low, and participants are not expecting to uncover deep truths. Speaker A is simply sharing an opinion, and such presuppositions are natural in casual exchanges where the tacit agreement is that everything is just opinion.

In a Discussion (Level 3), the assumption may or may not be problematic. The goal here is understanding, and the presupposition does not necessarily prevent Speaker B from seeing where A is coming from. If B disagrees but wants to preserve the spirit of discussion, they might respond: “Well, I’m not sure climate change is even changing our way of life, but I see your point. What steps do you think should be taken?” This keeps the exchange at the discussion level.

If, however, Speaker B presses more directly: “On what basis are you asserting that climate change is even affecting us?” the discourse has likely shifted into Debate (Level 4), where logical fallacies are directly challenged and evidence becomes necessary.

Finally, Speaker B might respond in a hostile way: “Your argument begs the question of whether climate change is even bad to begin with. Jumping to conclusions like that is typical of the liberal elites who think they already know everything.” While the fallacy is correctly identified, the personal insult escalates the exchange into an Argument (Level 5). What began as a discussion about assumptions now devolves into identity-based conflict.

Fallacies themselves are neutral and can appear at any level of discourse. It is the response to the fallacy, whether patient, probing, competitive, or hostile, that determines whether discourse remains constructive or collapses into argument.

The efficacy of the levels

It would be incorrect to conclude that Level 3, Discussion, is the only level of discourse worth having. Each level has both shortcomings and benefits.

Small Talk, while sharing little actual information, helps maintain human connection and is a reliable way to establish rapport. Conversation has its own value, giving individuals the chance to share thoughts and feelings without the mental load of ensuring complete coherence or airtight reasoning. Because the stakes are low, there is little stress, which allows for freer exploration of ideas.

Level 3, Discussion, though often the most productive for building genuine understanding, is not without flaws. It takes time. A discussion on a difficult topic, such as gun control, might require hours before two disagreeing parties gain even a modest grasp of each other’s positions. This requires either serendipitous alignment of schedules or deliberate planning. Yet once understanding is reached, it can be returned to and built upon, making discussion a deeply rewarding mode of discourse, chiefly among those you interact with often.

Debates, too, have their place. The goal of persuasion can be highly useful, especially for topics of immediate consequence from questions of public policy to group project roadmaps. Still, debates carry their own risks. The most common shortfall of debates is that just because one individual cannot make a point, it does not follow that the point cannot be made.

Consider a Thanksgiving exchange. Uncle Buck loudly declares, “We never landed on the moon!” Cousin Sally retorts, “Nay nay, we most certainly did land on the moon! How could you think otherwise?” Uncle Buck comes back with confidence: “Just look at the pictures! None of the shadows are parallel, as if there are multiple sources of light *ahem* stage lighting in Hollywood.” Uncle Buck takes another drag from his cigarette. “If the Sun is the only source of light, the shadows should all be parallel.”

Sally has no ready response. How could she? She has not even seen the photo Buck is referencing, let alone studied the physics of light on uneven terrain. It might take a team at NASA half an hour to gather the context and craft a thorough rebuttal. In the framework of discourse outlined above, this exchange sits at Level 4: Debate. Uncle Buck made his claim for the room to hear, and Sally threw down her gauntlet in reply, unprepared.

By the rules of debate, Uncle Buck has “won.” Sally offered no counter, and a neutral observer, if such a thing existed, would score the point in Buck’s favor. Yet someone approaching discourse with the goal of understanding will recognize the deeper truth: Sally’s inability to answer does not mean Uncle Buck is correct. Her silence reflects only the limits of her knowledge in that moment, not the strength of his argument.

This example is only a slight exaggeration of the content that racks up tens of millions of views on YouTube and other social media platforms. Figures like Charlie Kirk have built careers on this tactic: traveling to college campuses with rehearsed talking points, practiced down to the smallest detail. Their strategy is to push every exchange as deep and as fast as possible until they reach a point the sophomore paleontology major cannot answer. At that moment, the debate is declared won, the “liberals destroyed,” and it is on to the next encounter. The formula is highly effective, both for generating views (from supporters and hate-watchers alike) and for convincing casual observers of the supposed strength of Kirk’s arguments.

While this is an example of a common downfall of debates, therein also lies their strength. If a debate can be organized between two similarly well-informed individuals, it can be an excellent way to highlight the shortcomings of either side. Debate offers an efficient alternative to the drawn-out thread pulling of discussion, allowing each participant to showcase the strengths of their own points while exposing the weaknesses of their opponent’s.

More broadly, a series of debates, whether between the same individuals or part of the broader zeitgeist, can serve as a stand-in for the validity of arguments as a whole. This is arguably the closest we can get to overcoming the shortfalls of human communication. Put more simply, if viewpoint A routinely defeats (for lack of a better word, ironically) viewpoint B, and the debaters of both sides are equally classed, informed, and given ample opportunity to prepare their arguments, then it is reasonable to conclude that A is the stronger of the two ideas.

Arguments are the only class of discourse that have no primary benefit. Unless you’re into that sort of thing, I guess. They can occasionally lead to good outcomes (venting, brutal honesty, boundary setting, etc.), but these are usually silver linings to an ugly level of discourse and could have been achieved in a more reasonable way. It is best to excuse oneself if either side of a discourse is devolving into an argument.

In conclusion

I find the framing of discourse in the above terms to be a useful tool for making sense of the many ways humans attempt to share ideas. Language is both messy and unfair: some people are simply more skilled with it than others. In the absence of the babel fish eating brain waves and excreting them into your subconscious, we are left to stumble through with imperfect language, mismatched definitions, and uneven rhetorical skill.

The best we can do is approach one another with patience, clarity, and humility. By recognizing the level at which a conversation is taking place, we can adjust our expectations, temper our reactions, and avoid conflict. Small Talk and Conversation keep us connected, Discussion deepens understanding, Debate tests the strength of ideas, and even Arguments can reveal some harsh truths in record time.

Post Script

The idea of levels of discourse is one I have been mulling over and applying for nearly a decade. As much as an idea can belong to anyone, this one is mine. That is, I have not come accross anyone else calssifying discourse in this way. I welcome any criticism, critique, or references that might sharpen or challenge it.