My argument was persuasive enough to sway myself. I would like to share with you why I am against texting.
A couple of years ago, when I was first introduced to texting, I immediately disclosed it as a scam; I deemed it as a paid form of email. However, as it became popular, the practice was legitimized. I accepted it because I acknowledged texting as a form of silent and versatile communication. It did not distract others and could be sent and viewed at any comfortable time.
Over time, however, I realized texting was neither silent nor versatile. (in general)
Texting quickly became the most distracting form of communication. Where people in the past would tactfully excuse themselves from a table to make a call, now people would obnoxiously text bluntly in your prescience.
However, the bigger problem was its lack of versatility.
Texts are so goddamn laconic that it outrightly eliminates any complexities of a spoken message. Sarcasm, emphasis, tone are all succinctly razed by the touch of the send button. The purpose of texts is to communicate, and yet, the art of communication is lost by the act of texting.
My friend said that texting avoids the awkwardness found in speech. This is true. However, I would like to point out that texts only avoids the problem of awkward speech, not solve it. In order to solve the problem we must not seek to talk less, but talk more!
Overall, texting is too apathetic, incomplete, artificial, costy, restrictive for my taste.
Do you agree or disagree? Perhaps post an argument in the comments?