Do contractions (e.g. "don't") and full phrases (e.g. "do not") have the same meaning?

What is the difference between "don't" and "do not" in the English literature as well as spoken English? Are they same?

The same question goes for "wouldn't" and "would not", "couldn't" and "could not".

Solution 1:

"Don't", "wouldn't" and "couldn't" are contractions of "do", "would" and "could" with "not".

From the Wikipedia page on Contraction:

An informal type of contraction occurs frequently in speech and writing, in which a syllable is substituted by an apostrophe and/or other mode of elision, e.g., can't for "cannot", won't for "will not". Such contractions are often either negations with not or combinations of pronouns with auxiliary verbs, e.g., I'll for "I will".

• The contractions (e.g. don't) and the full phrases (e.g. do not) have the same meaning.
• Contractions are more frequent in speech than writing.
• Contractions are more frequent in informal than formal contexts.
• It is not always the case that you can replace "don't" or "can't" etc. with "do not" or "cannot" directly; e.g. "Why can’t I?" (See nohat's comments below)

Solution 2:

But don't you think that sometimes, "don't" works better than "do not"? "Do not" conveys an urgency or an order. While "don't" is not as pressing or commanding. For instance, I don't see your point of view." It could sound strange to force the argument by saying, "I do not see your point of view." Any thoughts on this?