Quotes About Argument

Difference of opinion is a clash, and to clash is a 'weakness'.

It must be wonderful sport to contradict each other.

Banker are arguing over whose profession is the oldest. The geologist points out that his science as as old as the Earth itself. The chemist scoffs at that: Long before the Earth was formed, there were masses of swirling gasses--chemicals. Before that, there was just chaos. The investment banker smiles slyly, nursing a martini: And who do you think created all that chaos?

In m second year I attended a public debate on a theme that interested me, though not by its novelty: does life mainly evolve through small gradual changes, or through big catastrophic ones? In those days that theme was supposed to be religious as well as scientific, so the principle speakers swerved from fanatical solemnity to facetious jocularity, and changed the ground of their argument whenever it gave them the slightest advantage over their opponents.

The introduction of the word 'intuition' by a moral philosopher is always a signal that something has gone badly wrong with an argument.

El año pasado pregunté a un conocido diplomático norteamericano de la Sociedad de Naciones por qué no amenazaban al Japón con un embargo comercial si continuaba con su campaña de violencia.Nuestros intereses económicos son demasiado poderosos fue la respuesta. ¿Cómo es posible ayudar a los hombres si son capaces de contentarse con este tipo de argumentos?

Random quotes don't constitute an argument.

Things somehow seem more real and vivid when one can apply somebody else's ready-made phrase about them (...) you bring them out triumphantly, and feel you've clinched the argument with the mere magical sound of them. That's what comes of the higher education.

Propaganda may be defined as opposed to rational argument; argument based upon facts. Argument based on facts aims at producing an intellectual conviction; propaganda aims, above all, at producing reflex action. It is aimed at bypassing the rational choice based upon knowledge of facts and getting directly at the solar plexus, so to speak, and affecting the subconscious.

Finding bad reasons for what one believes for other bad reasons – that's philosophy.

To argue:...only causes us to fall into the pit of Because, and there to perish with the dogs of Reason.

She did not have strong views on politics. She did not like the confrontational nature of much political discussion; why could people not argue politely, she wondered, taking into account the views of others and accepting that people might differ with one another in perfectly good faith?

people decided what they thought and would not be moved, not even by the most patient, the most rational argument.

Holy hell," she said to the empty room. How was she ever going to win an argument with a man that calmed her with orgasms?

Manet also had an argument with Degas, the end result being that they each returned paintings that they had previous given to each other.

Although these attitudes are not universally held, they influence the way many Americans think about reproduction. Myths are more than made-up stories. They are also firmly held beliefs that represent and attempt to explain what we perceive to be the truth. They can become more credible than reality, holding fast even in the face of airtight statistics and rational argument to the contrary.

She sighed audibly. 'I bet this is something to do with the bloody magazine.' 'Fanzine. It's not a magazine, it's a fa-' 'I don't

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

Disagreement is not oppression. Argument is not assault. Words – even provocative or repugnant ones – are not violence. The answer to speech we do not like is more speech.

Trans campaigners intent on arguing that trans is hardware can only win their argument if they persuade people that being a woman is a matter of software. And not all feminists are willing to concede that one.

So the recognition that there were two different sexes turned into the suggestion that there were two different genders. And from there the argument was carefully escorted to what turned out – in the universities at least – to be a wildly popular conclusion: which is that there was in fact no such thing as gender. Gender was not real but merely a 'social construct'.

Attaching "produced at Berkeley, Harvard, MIT" to a ridiculous argument immediately makes it cogent to many. That's part of life, but let's not pretend that it's rationality.

something is wrong with the entire argument of 'obviousness.

It is senseless to argue with someone whose sole purpose in life is to not be convinced of anything.