argument简单

Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co-authors say reason might play a bigger role.

他认为，最不能打动人的是理性论证，尽管他的合著者说理性可能发挥了更大的作用。

Why, the argument goes, should a car-driving pensioner from Lincolnshire have to subsidise the daily commute of a stockbroker from Surrey?

按这种说法，一位来自林肯郡、开车出行的退休老人凭什么要为一位来自萨里郡的股票经纪人的日常通勤提供补贴呢？

A move back to self-sufficiency, the argument goes, would boost the farming industry, political sovereignty and even the nation’s health.

这种观点认为，回归自给自足将促进农业、增强政治主权，甚至改善国民健康。

You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments.

你会乐于用糟糕的论证去说服别人。

Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good.

下次你陈述自己的立场时，为你的主张构建一个论证，并诚实地问问自己这个论证是否站得住脚。

Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good.

下次你陈述自己的立场时，为你的主张构建一个论证，并诚实地问问自己这个论证是否站得住脚。

These views of arguments also undermine reason.

这些对争论的看法也会损害理性。

These tools can help you win every argument — not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments — from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding — then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.

这些方法可以帮助你赢得每一场争论——不是在击败对手这种无益的意义上，而是在更好的意义上：了解使人们产生分歧的问题，了解他们为什么与我们意见不同，并学会与他们交谈和合作。如果我们重新调整对争论的看法——从口头争斗或网球比赛转变为一种理性的交流，通过这种交流我们都能获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了“赢得”争论的本质含义。

These tools can help you win every argument — not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments — from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding — then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.

这些方法可以帮助你赢得每一场争论——不是在击败对手这种无益的意义上，而是在更好的意义上：了解使人们产生分歧的问题，了解他们为什么与我们意见不同，并学会与他们交谈和合作。如果我们重新调整对争论的看法——从口头争斗或网球比赛转变为一种理性的交流，通过这种交流我们都能获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了“赢得”争论的本质含义。

These tools can help you win every argument — not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments — from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding — then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.

这些方法可以帮助你赢得每一场争论——不是在击败对手这种无益的意义上，而是在更好的意义上：了解使人们产生分歧的问题，了解他们为什么与我们意见不同，并学会与他们交谈和合作。如果我们重新调整对争论的看法——从口头争斗或网球比赛转变为一种理性的交流，通过这种交流我们都能获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了“赢得”争论的本质含义。

Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions — like, say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.

如果争论就是争斗——我们常常这样看待争论——那么卡耐基就是对的。和肢体冲突一样，口头争斗也会让双方都头破血流。即使你赢了，最终也不会更好。即便争论只是竞赛——比如说网球比赛——你的前景也几乎同样黯淡。对手们两两对阵，来回击球，直到所有参赛者中产生一个胜者。其他人都是输家。正是这种想法让那么多人尽量避免争论，尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。

Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions — like, say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.

如果争论就是争斗——我们常常这样看待争论——那么卡耐基就是对的。和肢体冲突一样，口头争斗也会让双方都头破血流。即使你赢了，最终也不会更好。即便争论只是竞赛——比如说网球比赛——你的前景也几乎同样黯淡。对手们两两对阵，来回击球，直到所有参赛者中产生一个胜者。其他人都是输家。正是这种想法让那么多人尽量避免争论，尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。

This is not an argument against target-setting.

这并不是反对设定目标的论点。

But it is an argument for exploring consequences first.

但它是一个主张先探究后果的论点。

The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy.

西班牙的情况为支持和反对君主制双方都提供了论据。

Critics make three main arguments against gene patents: a gene is a product of nature, so it may not be patented; gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it; and patents’ monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad’s.

批评者反对基因专利的主要理由有三：基因是自然的产物，因此不能申请专利；基因专利压制而非奖励创新；专利垄断限制了人们获得像麦利亚德公司那样的基因检测。