What is the difference between refuting an argument and explaining a contradiction? What exactly counts as a contradiction? What's the subtle difference between them?

Answer 1

An argument deals with opposing opinions, ideas, or beliefs. A contradiction deals with opposing statements, phrases, and meanings. Since both words deal with opposing information, the subtle difference is in how the information is used - i.e. What two “things” are actually being opposed?

In an argument, information is used to support an opinion (that usually opposes another directly). The “opinions” are in opposition, not the actual information supporting them. With a contradiction, however, the information is used only for its meaning. Here, the actual “meaning” of the information is in opposition, creating more than one meaning where only one can exist. For the information to be logical, the conflicting meanings cannot both be true. This problem best highlights the difference from an argument. Within a contradiction, the different meanings cannot co-exist and the information remain true and/or logical. Unlike an argument, different information can co-exist and remain true since the opinions are in opposition, rather than the actual information supporting the opinions.

When refuting an argument the opinions get refuted, not the factual information. When explaining a contradiction the illogical information is identified, and the dual meanings are pointed out and separated.

Hope this helps!