I realize that several of these choices might suit you equally well, and if that's the case, please just choose one of them at random; it doesn't even matter which. For all intents and purposes, I consider all but the first option to be definitive yesses, but I wanted to give some leeway for those who are too argumentative to admit that they're argumentative.
[And now I sit back and prepare for people to argue that "yesses" is not the correct plural of "yes."]
I'm in the "discussion, not argument" lot there. I realize that's pretty subjective, but that's where I would like to at least feel I stand.
I prefer to see it that way myself, but oftentimes my discussion is the other person's argument (something I'm not always quick to recognize).
The reason I posed the question is because I was thinking (based on something said in another thread) about the nature of confrontation. It occurred to me that, based on our choice of hobby, boardgamers might derive an abnormally high level of enjoyment from intellect-based confrontation. The results so far seem to be somewhat abnormal (a comfortable majority enjoy arguing), but it's hard to know for sure without doing a control group poll in a Very Normal Place - and I don't even know where that is!
Are you considering argumentation to be a game? That's rather sophistic of you.
I like to argue, but with caveats that are not among the ones you list. I will only argue with someone I am unlikely to persuade if there's a potentially receptive audience. I generally give people the credit to assume they are amenable to reason unless they prove otherwise by their own words. Arguing with someone who repeats previously refuted claims, blatantly puts words in my mouth (not just by misunderstanding) or says things that can't be parsed is pointless drudgery. Don't judge a book by its cover, but don't cast your pearls before swine.
Arguing against some people can be very like playing a boardgame against an opponent who wilfully violates the rules.
I went with the discussion, not argument, option as well, but if possible I'd rather just avoid it. All too often people see it as some kind of confrontation where they're not allowed to back down once they've stated their case, and will stubbornly cling to it even after it's been proven wrong with a logical, well-reasoned counter argument (often even after the person who has made the better case has done the decent thing and tried to drop the subject). The key to a constructive rather than a destructive argument is knowing when to call it.
I enjoy arguments when I'm the one spectating them, not participating (I'm sadistic that way), but do enjoy discussions about various board gaming topics (sleeves, publishers, costs, strategies, genres, etc.), and others too (insurance, traffic, sci-fi, culture,etc.)
That, and arguing is also a type of game and it's amusing to see who gets the most victory points there, or in what order people get eliminated