Informal arguments:
* Dialogue: A back-and-forth exchange of ideas, often more emotional and less focused on rigid logic. This can be very intimate, especially when it's between close friends or family.
* Informal Debate: A casual discussion where participants express their opinions and challenge each other's viewpoints. This can be quite lively and intimate, but still maintains a level of respect.
* Personal Anecdotes: Using personal stories to illustrate a point can be very engaging and build rapport. However, it's important to use them sparingly and ensure they're relevant.
Formal arguments:
* Academic Papers: Rigorous, objective, and focused on evidence-based reasoning. This form tends to be impersonal and less conducive to intimacy.
* Legal Arguments: Structured and based on precedents and legal rules. While there can be passion involved, the emphasis is on logic and evidence, not emotional connection.
* Political Speeches: Can be passionate and emotional, but often rely on persuasive rhetoric and appeals to the audience's values. While they can be impactful, they're typically not intended to be intimate.
Ultimately, the intimacy and formality of an argument depend on factors like:
* Relationship between the participants: Close friends can argue more intimately than strangers.
* Purpose of the argument: An argument aimed at resolving a conflict will likely be more intimate than one trying to persuade a large audience.
* Context of the argument: A casual conversation at a party will be more informal than a formal debate in a courtroom.
In conclusion, there's no one-size-fits-all answer. Both informal and formal arguments can be intimate and less formal depending on the situation. It's the specific elements of the argument and the relationship between the participants that determine the level of intimacy and formality.