Every argument is incapable of helping unless it is singular and addressed to a single person. Therefore, one who discourses in any other way presumably does so from love of reputation.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
As I say, I'm a discourse advocate. What form it comes is less important to me than the fact that there is discourse.
If a person can be said to have the wrong attitude, there is no need to pay attention to his arguments.
Arguments only confirm people in their own opinions.
I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that's not their job.
People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.
I'm used to politics at an international level: people put together an argument and, even if you vehemently disagree with them, well, you can recognise it's an argument and respond.
Arguments, like children, should be like the subject that begets them.
The difficult part in an argument is not to defend one's opinion but rather to know it.
It is a remarkably easy thing to do, pointing out the faults of others and suggesting remedies or courses of action in an argumentative and pedantic sort of way, and I am still amazed that there are many people in the American media who are paid very big money to do this.
The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument or follow a long chain of reasoning.