1.) Arguing over text.
2.) Arguing over text ruins relationships.
3.) Arguing over text is an inefficient and harmful way of communication.
4.) You are unable to understand the feelings of the person of whom you are arguing with.
5.) Texting is a common way of communication, but arguing over text with a friend, family member, or partner can be misleading. When someone argues over text, it is hard to understand the tone of how someone is texting.
6.) Verbally fighting with someone you care about is already stressful as it is. While arguing over text you are unable to read someone’s body language. Face to face confrontation should be applied more in today’s generation.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
I do like the idea that miscommunication is prevalent in a text-only format, Softball. It’s not confined to “texting,” of course. You won’t be surprised that my feedback here on the blog is often misunderstood, or that having a conversation about it afterwards often clears up the confusion very quickly.
Just a moment ago, I remarked to a student that “you could probably buy a paper on that premise in about 5 minutes.”
Which of the following do you suppose the student who read that will interpret me to have meant?:
Both are possible, aren’t they?
On the other hand, it might have been equally easy to misinterpret in person IF the person hearing the remark doesn’t ask a followup question to clarify.
Anyway, this sounds worthy of developing as a topic. I’m interested to see where it goes. And I don’t think you’ll be able to buy a paper about it from a paper mill.
Let me know what you think.
I am somewhat biased as I understand all too well what you are getting at. Putting on my critical glasses, I think the 6-step evolution of the hypnosis can look somewhat same-y in a step or two. On the other hand, I had difficulty myself contorting a sentence into 6 different generations.
I wonder how you are going to handle the counter intuitive angle. This seems rather straight forward; I mean unless most people actually believe that texting is just as good a communication in person, in which case enlightening them to the power of face-to-face communication would be a shocking revelation.
For material to gather, I once heard some generalization that “80% of communication in non-verbal” (or something like that). If that is true, then text message conversations are missing 80% of the conversation. Academic papers on non-verbal communication would be of interest to me in your shoes.
Slightly more abstract would be the concept of “lost in translation”, it usually apples to translating one language into another and what is lost along the way. If you could make the argument that texting is in abstract another language, you could go down that route. Though, I assuming most academic papers would be too literal in this idea, so I would suggest hedge your bet with how much time you spend investigating this potential angle.