This could explain some of the reasoning in Congress.

Reasoning contrary to facts and evidence can lead to poor outcomes. No one is suggesting that reason is magic fairy dust that makes you right. It is a tool, one of several in the toolbox, and like all tools, has to be used skillfully.

While there is some truth that we have evolved to win arguments regardless of whether or not they are supportable, that does not mean we can't or shouldn't train ourselves to rise above that.

Poor reasoning is always the result of a flawed assumption, otherwise known as Not the truth.

Sounds like the realm of politicians and lawyers to me.

This Argumentative Theory is invalid because reason was used to create it and it’s been clearly demonstrated by the Argumentative Theory that reason is insufficient.

Watching people fall prey to the ambiguity fallacy in their responses makes me believe the post has merit.

Reasoning - the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

Reasoning is the thinking that then produces the speach for others or analyse.

We take in others speach and reason or think about it based on out level or amount of knowledge that would organize the thoughts in a logical and/or sensible way.

Argument - 1) an exchange of diverging or opposite views
2) a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others

People that want to argue want to clash or control over the other.

There are somethings that would just clash if they were crossed and arguing isn't the resolution other than for one's reasoning to control the other.

Qualitative reasoning could be considered for comparison of which reason is better. Not specifically an argument of opposition and does not mean they are specifically diverging. It could become an opposition because of a control persuasion intent of the one with the winning or better reason.

Are we arguing apples and oranges or are we arguing oranges and apples?

This makes perfect sense evolutionarily, and is an interesting and useful piece of information, but to be clear, it is not an argument for the devaluing of reason relative to subjectivity or intuition. Rather it is an argument for devaluing individual reasoning relative to group reasoning.

And secondly, it only addresses what reason was originally adaptive for; it doesn't address what it might be exaptive for.

If I were to approach the item in question from a 'reasoned' point of view I might get into links, facts, evidence and other basic forms. But, to me, this is one discussion that needs to be dealt from an emotional point of view. It's pure BS. Both reason and rationality are similar and complimentary.
" As nouns the difference between reason and rationality is that reason is a cause: while rationality is quality or state of being rational; agreement with reason; possession of reason; due exercise of reason; reasonableness."

I thought this captured the core of the argument against reason as being the be all and end all of human evolution. Intuition has long been ignored.

'The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality
… the starting point of our theory was this contrast between all the results showing that reasoning doesn't work so well and the assumption that reasoning is supposed to help us make better decisions. But this assumption was not based on any evolutionary thinking, it was just an intuition that was probably cultural in the West, people think that reasoning is a great thing.
And they never challenge that intuition. It's something that evolutionary psychology could have done a long time ago, and if people had perhaps taken more time and had taken evolutionary psychology more seriously, they might have been able to revise this likely faulty premise a while ago'.

Reasoning is indeed about convincing others when truth alone is not enough. In our current political situation I talk to others and spell out everything in detail. They all agree with my every word but in the end someone wants to be shown some evidence. If everyone agrees, what evidence is it that you want to see? Apparently their minds are made up already. In fact, Graham and a few others declare that they will not review any evidence because their minds are made up in advance. Then they have balls enough to make that same remark on those who want to impeach with claims that if it was not so impeachment would not be the current issue.

There IS a vast difference between arguing and debating in case you were unaware.
For example in any argument 2 or more people are trying to get their point and their point alone accepted as being the absolute.
Whereas in any debate situation BOTH sides get equal opportunity to get their side of the discussion across AND equal opportunity to question, refute the other sides point or statement and the reasoning/s behind it as well.
Logical thought and reasoning ARE how we can usually get to the truth and the facts as well solving problems be they big or small, being argumentative gets no-one anywhere in all reality even though they may THINK they have won.

I disagree, part of reason is the dialectic. On which our political and judicial systems are based. For example, The prosecutor will put forward a thesis, in which he states the prisoner is guilty of murder, The defence will argue an antithesis, that he was innocent due to insanity. The jury might synthesis these two opposing arguments and find him guilty of manslaughter.
A similar thing is supposed to work in politics. A bill is proposed, debated, and often opposed but at best amended until a majority will agree on its merits.
In these very polarized times, it can be hard to remember that we should be open to compromise. And that not all discussions are "My way or highway"

Who said that?