"An argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."?

Any argument that is debated with reason & sound logic, can be described as being an “intellectual process.”
Contradiction on the other hand, can be viewed as an incompatability on specific issues, in other words, broad agreement is unlikely ever to be reached.

No it isn’t.

I think you are referring to this classic Monty Python bit.

This isn’t a question. Aren’t we supposed to ask questions on Fluther?

The question mark means I am questioning the statement. And, yes, it’s from one of my favorite Monty Python routines.

Perhaps comedy and Monday’s don’t mix.

Arguing requires a partner, while contradiction can be an solo activity cough. Mitt Romney, cough

I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!

I’m scared to say anything, because the other person might yell at me.

@Hawaii_Jake JUST WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?!?

As a serious-ish answer, I would agree with the original statement. At least by way of formal argument.

On a serious-ish note:

Many people find it difficult to enter into an argument because they learned at an early age that when they were around an argument (parental), it was a hostile situation. This was a form of confrontation that they would prefer to not take part in, and thus avoid it even as an adult.

No matter what level the argument takes, it should be done with respect and be allowed to be a two way discussion. Sadly, many people argue for the sake of trying to win and not for the sake of an intellectual conversation.

& now for something completely different!

A squirrel is a rodent, while a rat is a four-legged creature with a tail.

Contradict that!

What’s the difference between a weasel & a stoat?
One’s weasely wecognised & the other’s stoatally different.

If you cannot support your argument with facts and or figures then its not really an argument is it; its a disagreement.

I’d rephrase that to say that ” a debate is an intellectual process” and an “argument” is an egoic process.
The first is about fact and supportive information, the second is all about being right so as to “win” and make another “wrong.” This puffs up the false self, ego,compared to a true debate that is free of ego investment and only concerned with factual information.