This is a problematic question as the words are not clearcut in most peoples minds, but there are cues, and distinctions to be made.
Debate on wikipedia:
Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and
representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than
logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and
factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or
rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical
consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to
the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in
debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a
superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more
subtle and strategic.
Argue on wikipedia:
In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone
of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular
conclusion.[1][2] The general structure of an argument in a natural
language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions,
statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the
conclusion.[3][4][5] Many arguments can also be formulated in a formal
language. An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of
the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.
Thus a debate is:
- More formal
- More intellectual
- Normally concerns factual events, or theories
- Concerned with persuading the opposing party to an alternate viewpoint
To argue however is not the same as an arguement. Nor is the logical definition of 'argue' the same as what is commonly referred in public. One can argue the case of XYZ say in law or physics, or one can argue on the street ( in which case bickering would be a more appropriate word ).
For example Alice had an arguement with Bob where she accused him of paranoia, would not be considered a debate. Here Alice argues the point that Bob has paranoia. One can argue at a debate, and an argument, but an arguement is not a debate.
Arguments are thus:
- Informal
- Usually personal, though not always
- Not always concerned with the factual correctness
- Can be about things both parties are aware of, thus no opposing viewpoints, e.g. a row between a man and wife who have cheated on each other, would not be a debate, as they are both aware and agree that adultery took place.
In most of the cases of 'arguments', one could substitute another word such as row, tiff, bickering, and various other words. Where debate is concerned, one could use the word arguement, but not words such as row or bicker.
Debate has method. Argument does not necessarily.
Best Answer
I'm answering from a United States usage perspective. A curriculum vitae is more often used in academic settings, or workplaces where people have advanced degrees and so are used to using that term from academia.
"Vita" I would understand as a shorthand for "curriculum vitae" but I can't say I have encountered it before; the preferred shorthand here is "CV". CV is probably used more often than the full "curriculum vitae" term in the US.
"Résumé" (often the accents are dropped in the US, to "resume", or only the final accent is there, "resumé" -- all three are listed as legitimate spellings in the American Heritage Dictionary) is more a business term. Resume tends to be more common than CV, and would be the term I would choose as a default if you don't have an advanced degree or aren't applying someplace with an academic flavor.
"Maintenance History" sounds to me like something for an automobile -- I've never heard of it being applied to a person's work history. UK English, perhaps?