Meaning of the word argument. Types of arguments

People are quicker to believe either the completely obvious or the completely incredible. These well-known truths are often used in disputes to convince people that they are right. But there are other similar arguments to which there may be nothing to object, so your opponent will still have to agree in any dispute with you. How to use them correctly to win in any ambiguous situation and convince anyone of anything when your opinion does not coincide with the opinion of your interlocutor?

Components of arguments

Any argument is two-part. The first is its unconditional basis: it is simply impossible to argue with it based on fact. The second may be logically sound, scientifically proven, or logically tied to the basis of general thought. How to convince anyone of anything? Use a base and tie what fits to it in the best possible way in meaning to enhance it.

For example, a mother tells her daughter not to put her fingers in the socket. The basis in this case is the fact that the mother is an authority for the girl. Secondly, the parent personally says not to do this, talking about an example from her childhood, which is an obvious connection or communicates basic knowledge about the effect of current on a person.

Aristotle's 12 Arguments

There can be an infinite number of arguments, and they change depending on situations - as in the given example about the mother and the socket, and there are even more of them. But the basis of the arguments - small quantity. Knowing the basics will help you build a speech so that it becomes truly convincing and allows you to win in any dispute. Aristotle also came up with this golden dozen - we talk about all the main bases of any arguments. What is most convincing?

What can be checked

In order to believe in the truth of any statement or statement, it is enough for a person to at least know that there is a possibility of verifying what was said. This minimum is quite enough to convince you that testing is most often hindered by simple laziness or lack of time. For example, you want to recommend someone to read good book. You can talk for a very long time about literary merits or a brilliantly twisted plot, or very briefly advise your interlocutor to see for himself. Even if your counterpart still won’t read the book, he will most likely consider this book to be really good.

Unique

Name just one quality that characterizes a specific person, thing or phenomenon - and let it be unique, at least a little, but unlike all other analogues. The thinking of modern Western man is structured in such a way that we are automatically inclined to believe everything that carries any features or qualities that differ from the usual ones. For example, a quote from a rare ancient scroll will be more credible than the same information read in the tabloid press.

Any pop or movie star, for example, stands out from the rest in at least some way - there is no talk of vocal abilities or the aesthetic side of music or appearance now. With the East, things are exactly the opposite - a different argument is more suitable for convincing the inhabitants of that hemisphere.

Habitual

Long-familiar and beloved things or people seem familiar to us and deserving of all trust - and for this reason, everything that is similar to them automatically evokes the conviction of truth and our sympathy and faith. For example, when meeting, both partners, as a rule, strive to emphasize their individuality and uniqueness, describing their merits - and each of them at this time subconsciously looks for the traits of their beloved parents in each other.

This is what will ultimately resolve the issue of compatibility of a particular couple, and not unique skills and abilities. It is for this reason that in the West there are so many unusual and striking architectural structures, and in the countries of the East they so carefully preserve traditions and things, erecting buildings of recognizable shapes.

What indicates regression

Before, the grass was greener, the sky was bluer, children were more obedient, and the world was simpler. These beliefs idealize the past. And now - prices are rising, the environment is deteriorating and, in general, hair is turning grey. The idea of regression on any scale - from personal to global - is always very appropriate as an argument in any dispute. This base can be further expanded as desired.

Something that confirms progress

The opposite belief is accepted by everyone even more readily. Any of us will readily agree with a thought that will confirm our belief in progress and the inevitable advent of world peace. This basis is often used by politicians of any rank or managers of any level to convince voters of anything. It is human nature to believe in a bright future - remember, entire generations of our mothers and fathers worked real miracles in anticipation of the coming communism, where everything will be wonderful for everyone.

Persuasive, resulting from persuasive

Cause-and-effect relationships at the simplest level are understandable even to babies: here comes mom, my most important authority. This means that now they will take me in their arms and feed me. The logical connective “if-then” almost always works, and it is very convenient to use in an argument. Example: “If we are all reasonable people, then we will not ignore arguments that are proven logically.” Or here’s another: “If we are educated and reasonable people, then we will not take seriously everything that is written on the Internet.” Or, finally, the last one, to really convince: “If we already understand everything, then why give a third example of the obvious in a row?”

Facts

The argument to data is used very often - and just as often along the way it is hung with an endless number of over-interpretations, exaggerations and outright fakes, so they should be analyzed especially carefully before taking them on faith unconditionally. For example: “Moscow is the capital of Russia, so the weather will certainly be sunny this weekend.” The first is beyond any doubt and is known to any child, but the second will not necessarily be exactly like this, but next to the base it looks very convincing.

Useful

This argument tries hard to appear honest—and admittedly, it often succeeds. A simple example designed to convince businessmen to be honest: “Pay your taxes and sleep well.” At first glance, it may seem that this is an appeal to the conscience of a businessman, who certainly understands the benefits of not having headaches from contacts with the tax inspector. But in reality, of course, we are only talking about selfishness here - each of us thinks only about himself and this is normal. Although paying taxes is actually very useful.

Normal

We usually try to fit into the framework of the norm any phenomenon, thing or person with whom we have to deal or whom we need to convince of something. Naturally, the boundaries are very conditional and often changing, and everyone sets them on their own. A social norm takes into account and protects the norm a whole set of laws, customs, regulations and traditions - it is very convenient to rely on them when considering any issue. For example: “All women love to receive perfume and flowers as gifts, so they will definitely like our perfume.” Convincing a man to make a purchase in this way is quite simple.

Authorized

Even nihilists, anarchists and others who rebel against traditional values and authorities usually have some kind of leader whose opinions and words will not be subject to any doubt. Advertisers love to resort to this argument. For example, if Leonardo DiCaprio cheerfully announces that such and such a watch is the best in the world, a certain number of people will definitely believe him and buy exactly what he praised when it comes to choosing a brand.

Another example: “statements and quotes from great people” circulating on social networks: it seems that some are ready to believe even completely utter nonsense, illiterately written, if they see the name of Faina Ranevskaya, Friedrich Nietzsche or Buddha Gautama in the signature.

As told by eyewitnesses

Presented as true

We are what we seem to be, and the brain willingly and often begins to freely draw any tempting pictures and prospects if it is slightly stimulated and motivated to do so. There are no people without imagination, so the “imagine you could live here” argument in advertising a new home works very often and quickly.

“Truth is born in dispute!” - We are all familiar with this statement. But in order for this truth to appear, it is necessary to use a sufficient number of arguments and facts. A fact is a unit of philosophy that does not require proof. And this meaning is familiar to many. What is an argument?

Philosophy

An argument represents the basis of evidence or that part of it on which reality is based or in which the main evidentiary force is contained.

Depending on the purpose pursued in proving, the argument can be of several types:

1. Argument ad hominem (calculated on prejudices). Here, the basis of evidence is personal premises and beliefs, as well as statements.

2. Argument ad veritatem (declaration of truth). Here the proof comes from a statement tested by science, society and objectivity.

3. Argument e consensus gentium. In this case, the proof is what has been believed from time immemorial.

4. Argument a tuto. The proof is decisive in case of insufficiency of other arguments; it is based on the judgment that if it does not help, it will not harm.

5. Argument a baculo (last argument). In this case, if all arguments have been exhausted, the last argument in the dispute is the use of physical force.

Logics

Let's look at what an argument is in logic. Here this concept is a set of judgments that can be used to substantiate the truth of a theory or other judgment. For example, there is a saying: “Iron can be melted.” To prove this, two arguments can be used: “All metals can be melted” and “Iron is a metal.” From these two judgments one can logically deduce the opinion being proved, thereby justifying its truth. Or, for example, the judgment “What is happiness?” The following arguments can be used: “Happiness is different for everyone”, “A person himself determines the criteria by which he classifies himself as a happy or unhappy person.”

Rules

Arguments (A), which are used in the process of proving the truth of a judgment, must be subject to certain rules:

a) arguments must be true opinions and judgments;

b) they must be those judgments whose truth can be established in any case, regardless of opinion;

c) arguments must be the basis of a proven opinion.

If any of the rules are violated, it will lead to logical errors that will make the proof incorrect.

What is an argument in a dispute?

Arguments that are used in a dispute or discussion are divided into several types:

1. To the merits of the matter. In this case, the argument relates to the issue being discussed and aims to justify the truth of the evidence. The basic principles of any theories can be applied here, scientific concepts and judgments, previously established facts, proven provisions, etc.

If these arguments satisfy all the rules, then the proof in which they are used will be logically correct. In this case, the so-called ironclad argument will be used.

2. To a person. Such arguments are used only when there is a need to win an argument or discussion. They are directed to the opponent’s personality and affect his beliefs.

From a logical point of view, such arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute where participants are trying to find the truth.

Types of arguments “to the person”

The most common types of arguments “to a person” are the following:

1. Towards authority. Here, in the discussion, the opinions and statements of writers, scientists, public figures and so on. Such arguments may well exist, but they are incorrect. This is due to the fact that a person who has achieved success in a certain area cannot be an authority in other areas, so his opinion here may turn out to be erroneous.

An argument to authority can be applied using the authority of the audience, public opinion, the enemy and even your own. Sometimes a person can invent authority or attribute judgments to people who never expressed them.

2. To the public. Here the person refers to the mood and feelings of the listener. In a dispute, he addresses himself not to his opponent, but to the audience, random listeners, in order to attract them to his side, thus exerting psychological pressure on his opponent. The use of arguments to the public is especially effective when its material interests are affected. So, if one opponent proves that the opponent’s opinion affects financial situation those present, he will win their sympathy.

3. Towards the individual. The arguments are based on the personal characteristics of the opponent, on his shortcomings and advantages, tastes and appearance. If such an argument is used, then the subject of the dispute becomes the identity of the opponent in a negative light. There are also arguments that reveal the merits of the opponent. This technique is often used in courts when defending the accused.

4. To vanity. D This method is to say large quantity praise and compliments to the opponent in order to touch him so that he becomes more flexible and softer.

5. To strength. In this case, one of the opponents threatens to use force or coercion. This is especially true for a person endowed with power or who has a weapon.

6. To pity. What an argument for pity is is quite clear. This is evoking pity and empathy in the enemy. Such arguments are often used by many people who constantly complain about the severity of life and difficulties in the hope of awakening sympathy and a desire to help in their opponent.

7. To ignorance. In this case, one of the opponents uses facts that are unknown to the opponent. Often people are unable to admit that they don’t know something because they believe that doing so will make them lose their dignity. That is why, in a dispute with such people, the argument of ignorance works ironclad.

All of the above arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute. But practice shows the opposite. Most people skillfully use them to achieve their goals. If a person is noticed using one of these arguments, he should point out that they are incorrect and the person is not confident in his position.

Algebra

Let's look at what an argument is in algebra. In mathematics, this concept refers to an independent variable. So, when talking about tables where the value of a function from an independent variable is located, they mean that they are located by a certain argument. For example, in a table of logarithms, where the value is indicated log functions x, the number x is a table argument. Thus, answering the question of what a function argument is, we must say that this is the independent variable on which the value of the function depends.

Argument Increment

In mathematics, there is the concept of “increment of a function and argument.” We already know the concept of “function argument”; let’s look at what argument increment is. So, each argument has some meaning. The difference between its two values (old and new) is the increment. In mathematics this is denoted as follows: Dx:Dx = x 1 –x 0.

Theology

In theology, the concept of “argument” has its own meaning. Here the true proof is the divinity of Christianity, which comes from the prophecies and parables of the wise men, as well as from the miracles performed by Christ. The evidence in the dispute is also the inextricable connection between thinking and being, as well as the belief that God is the most perfect reality, existing not only in thoughts, but also in the real world.

Astronomy

In astronomy, the concept of the pericent argument is used. So, it represents a certain quantity that determines the orientation of the orbit of a certain celestial body in relation to the equatorial plane of some other celestial body. The latitude argument, used in astronomy, is a certain value that determines the position of a certain celestial body in orbit.

As you can see, it is impossible to give a definite answer to the question of what an argument is, since this concept has several meanings that depend on the area in which it is used. this concept. Whatever argument a person uses to prove the truth in a discussion or dispute, it must have logical premises and be based on proven facts. Only in this case will the dispute be correct and true. In any other case, the dispute will be incorrect, and the opponent who uses such arguments will not be sure that he is right.

The complexity of the arguments that are used to prove the truth of beliefs, as well as the entire process of justification, is called argumentation, the main goal of which is to attract the opponent to one’s side in the discussion of a certain problem.

ARGUMENT is:

ARGUMENT ARGUMENT (lat. argumentum, from arguere - to present, bring, prove). Argument, proof.

Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. - Chudinov A.N., 1910.

ARGUMENT [lat. argumentum] - 1) log. argument; judgments, provisions, facts used in the process of proof; 2) mat. an independent variable quantity, on the change of which the change in another quantity (function) depends.

Dictionary of foreign words. - Komlev N.G., 2006.

ARGUMENT proof.

A complete dictionary of foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language. - Popov M., 1907.

ARGUMENT proof.

Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. - Pavlenkov F., 1907.

ARGUMENT lat. argumentum, from arguere, to represent, bring, prove. Proof.

Explanation of 25,000 foreign words that came into use in the Russian language, with the meaning of their roots. - Mikhelson A.D., 1865.

Argument ( lat. argumentum) 1) logical argument that serves as the basis of evidence; 2) mat. an independent variable whose change determines the change in another quantity called a function; A. complex number r - angle φ in trigonometric form of this number r = r (cos p + i sin 9).

New dictionary of foreign words. - by EdwART, 2009.

Argument of argument, m. [lat. argumentum]. 1. Argument, reason given as evidence. A convincing argument. This is not an argument. A compelling argument. 2. Independent variable (mat.).

Large dictionary of foreign words. - Publishing house "IDDK", 2007.

Argument a, m. (German Argument fr. argument lat. argūmentum factual proof).
1. A logical argument that serves as the basis of evidence.
|| Wed. motive, reason.
2. mat. An independent variable whose change determines the change in another quantity (functions).

Dictionary foreign words by L. P. Krysin. - M: Russian language, 1998.

Argument

Wiktionary has an article "argument" Wikisource has texts on the topic
Argument

Argument(lat. argumentum- story, argument, theme) - ambiguous term:

Argument in logic - a statement (premise) or a group of statements (premises) given in support (proof) of another statement (conclusion).
Argument in mathematics:
- Function argument- an independent variable on whose values the function values depend.
- Complex Number Argument- one of the quantities associated with a complex number.
- Maximization Argument, Minimization Argument
Function argument in programming, the value passed to a function, or its symbolic name.
Argument in astronomy
- Periapsis argument(perigee argument, perihelion argument) - a quantity that determines the orientation of the orbit of a celestial body relative to the plane of the ecliptic or the equator of another celestial body.
- Latitude argument- a quantity that determines the position of a celestial body in orbit.
Argument in the history of drama - summary content of the play.
"Arguments and Facts"- Russian weekly socio-political newspaper.
Argument in football hooligan slang - anything you can use to hit your opponent in a fight.
"Argument" - official name series of police polymer batons given to her by the manufacturer (PUS-1, PUS-2, PUS-3).
Argument (lat. argumentum) - a judgment (or a set of interrelated judgments) by means of which the truth of another judgment (or theory) is justified.

What is an argument?

Vjacheslav goryainov

Argument in mathematics:

Argument in astronomy:

Maxim Vaigauskas

An argument in logic is a statement (premise) or a group of statements (premises) given in support of another statement (conclusion).

Argument in mathematics:
A function argument is an independent variable on whose values the function values depend.
The complex number argument is one of the quantities associated with a complex number.
Maximization Argument, Minimization Argument

A function argument in programming is the value passed to the function or its symbolic name.

Argument in astronomy:
The periapsis argument (perigee argument, perihelion argument) is a quantity that determines the orientation of the orbit of a celestial body relative to the plane of the ecliptic or the equator of another celestial body.

The latitude argument is a quantity that determines the position of a celestial body in orbit.

An argument in the history of drama is a summary of the content of a play.

"Arguments and Facts" is a Russian weekly socio-political newspaper.

An argument in the slang of football hooligans - everything you can use to hit your opponent in a fight.

Daniil Zazerin

An argument in logic is a statement (premise) or a group of statements (premises) given in support of another statement (conclusion).

A function argument in programming is the value passed to the function or its symbolic name.

The latitude argument is a quantity that determines the position of a celestial body in orbit.

An argument in the history of drama is a summary of the content of a play.

"Arguments and Facts" is a Russian weekly socio-political newspaper.

An argument in the slang of football hooligans - everything you can use to hit your opponent in a fight

Argument

(lat. argumentum) a judgment (or a set of interrelated judgments) by means of which the truth of something is justified. another judgment (or theory). When proving a certain proposition, A. are the grounds, or premises, from which the proposition being proven logically follows. For example, to prove the proposition “Iron is melting,” we can use two A.: “All metals are melting” and “Iron is metal.” Having accepted these two propositions as premises, we can logically deduce from them the proposition being proved and thereby justify its truth.

A., used in the process of proving a certain proposition, must satisfy the following rules:

1. A. must be true propositions.

2. A. must be judgments, the truth of which is established independently of the thesis.

3. A. must be a sufficient basis for the thesis being proven.

Violation of these rules leads to various logical errors that make the proof incorrect. A. used in a discussion or dispute can be divided into two types: A. ad rem (to the merits of the matter) and A. ad hominem (to the person). A. of the first type are relevant to the issue under discussion and are aimed at substantiating the truth of the position being proven. The principles or principles of some theory can be used as such A.; definitions of concepts accepted in science; judgments describing established facts; previously proven provisions, etc. If arguments of a given type satisfy the rules listed above, then the proof based on them will be correct from a logical point of view.

A. of the second type do not relate to the essence of the matter and are used only to win a polemic or a dispute. They affect the personality of the opponent, his beliefs, appeal to the opinions of the audience, etc. From a logical point of view, these A. are incorrect and cannot be used in a discussion whose participants strive to clarify and substantiate the truth. The most common varieties are the following:

A. authority - a reference to statements or opinions of great scientists, public figures, writers, etc. in support of one's thesis. Such a link may seem perfectly acceptable, but it is incorrect. The fact is that a person who has received recognition for his success in one area cannot be equally authoritative in all other areas. Therefore, his opinion, going beyond the field in which he worked, may well turn out to be erroneous. Moreover, even in the area in which he worked great man, not all of his statements or opinions are absolutely true. Therefore, the reference to the fact that such and such a person held such and such an opinion does not say anything about the truth of this opinion. A. to authority has many different forms. They appeal to the authority of public opinion, to the authority of the audience, to the authority of the enemy, and even to their own authority. Sometimes fictitious authorities are invented or judgments are attributed to real authorities that they never expressed.

A. to the public - a reference to the opinions, moods, feelings of listeners. A person who uses such an attack no longer addresses his opponent, but rather those present, sometimes even random listeners, trying to attract them to his side and with their help exert psychological pressure on the enemy.

For example, at one of the discussions on Charles Darwin’s theory of the origin of species, Bishop Wilberforce addressed the audience

I'm asking if their ancestors were monkeys. The biologist T. Huxley, who defended this theory, responded that he was ashamed not of his ape ancestors, but of people who lack intelligence and are unable to take Darwin’s arguments seriously. The bishop's argument is a typical argument to the public. To those who were present at this discussion that took place at the end of the last century, it seemed not entirely proper to have monkeys as their, even distant, ancestors.

One of the most effective types of speech to the public is a reference to the material interests of those present. If one of the opponents manages to show that the thesis defended by his opponent affects the financial situation, income, etc. of those present, then their sympathy will most likely be on the side of the first.

A. personality - a reference to the personal characteristics of the opponent, his tastes, appearance, advantages or disadvantages. The use of this A. leads to the fact that the subject of the dispute remains aside, and the subject of discussion turns out to be the personality of the opponent, and usually in a negative light.

For example, when a teacher, assessing a student’s answer, gives him a clearly underestimated grade, citing the fact that this student has not studied his homework before, that he does poorly in other subjects, that he once skipped class, that he is sloppily dressed, and etc., then he uses A. to the person.

There is A. to a person and with the opposite direction, that is, a reference not to shortcomings, but to the merits of a person. This kind of A. is often used in court by defense attorneys for the accused.

A. vanity - lavishing immoderate praise on an opponent in the hope that, touched by compliments, he will become softer and more accommodating. As soon as phrases like “the opponent’s deep erudition is beyond doubt”, “as a person of outstanding merit, the opponent...”, etc., begin to appear in the discussion, here we can assume a veiled A. to vanity.

A. to force - a threat of unpleasant consequences, in particular the threat of violence or direct use of force. means of coercion. A person endowed with power, physical strength or armed is sometimes tempted to resort to threats in a dispute, especially with an intellectually superior opponent. However, it should be remembered that consent extracted under the threat of violence is worth nothing and does not oblige the consenter to anything.

A. pity - arousal in the other side of pity and sympathy. For example, a student who is poorly prepared to take an exam asks the professor to give him a positive grade, otherwise he will be deprived of a scholarship, etc. This A. is unconsciously used by many people who have adopted the habit of constantly complaining about the hardships of life, difficulties, illnesses , to failures, etc. in the hope of awakening in listeners sympathy and a desire to give in, to help in something.

A. ignorance - the use of facts and provisions unknown to the opponent, reference to works that he obviously did not read. People often do not want to admit that they do not know something; they feel that by doing so they are losing their dignity. In a dispute with such people, A. to ignorance sometimes works flawlessly. However, if you are not afraid to appear ignorant and ask your opponent to tell you more about what he is referring to, it may turn out that his reference has nothing to do with the subject of the dispute.

All of the A. listed are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute. However, a dispute is not only a clash of minds, but also a clash of characters and feelings, therefore the listed A. still occur in both everyday and scientific disputes. Having noticed an attack of this kind, you should point out to the enemy that he is resorting to incorrect methods of conducting a dispute, therefore, he is not confident in the strength of his positions (see: Dispute).

Dictionary of logic. - M.: Tumanit, ed. VLADOS center. A.A.Ivin, A.L.Nikiforov. 1997 .

Synonyms:

See what an “argument” is in other dictionaries:

- (Latin argumentum, from arguere to represent, bring, prove). Argument, proof. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. ARGUMENT [lat. argumentum] 1) log. argument; judgments, provisions, facts,... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Argument, proof, consideration, basis, reason. Wed. proof... Dictionary of Russian synonyms and similar expressions. under. ed. N. Abramova, M.: Russian dictionaries, 1999 ... Dictionary of synonyms

argument- a, m. argument m., lat. argumentum. 1. log. A corollary drawn from two sentences. Sl. 18. An argument is called in logic when I compare two sentences with a certain third sentence, and seeing that both are similar to this third, I notice that ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

ARGUMENT, argument, husband. (lat. argumentum). 1. Argument, reason given as evidence. A convincing argument. This is not an argument. A compelling argument. 2. Independent variable (mat.). Ushakov's explanatory dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 … Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

- (lat. argumentum) ..1) a judgment (or a set of judgments) given to confirm the truth of another judgment (concept, theory)2)] The basis (part of the basis) of evidence3) In mathematics, the argument of a function is an independent variable... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (lat. argumentum), l) a judgment (or a set of interrelated judgments) given in support of the truth of a class. other judgments (or theories). 2) A. in logic, premise of proof, otherwise called. basis or argument of evidence;… … Philosophical Encyclopedia

argument- (incorrect argument) ... Dictionary of difficulties of pronunciation and stress in modern Russian language

Argument- Argument ♦ Argument An idea used to support another idea, but not sufficient to support it. An argument is not proof, but something that replaces proof in its absence... Philosophical Dictionary Sponville

- (Latin argumentum), 1) a judgment (or a set of judgments) given in support of the truth of another judgment (concept, theory). 2) The basis (part of the basis) of the evidence... Modern encyclopedia

ARGUMENT, in mathematics, a designation for an independent variable. For example, in the function f(x)=x2+3 the argument is x... Scientific and technical encyclopedic dictionary

ARGUMENT, ah, husband. 1. Argument, proof. Vesky A. 2. In mathematics: an independent variable whose change determines the change in another quantity (function). Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

[ˈɑːgjʊmənt]

Add to bookmarks Remove from bookmarks

noun

argument (argument, parameter, argumentation, proof, reasoning)
dispute (quarrel)
discussion (discussion)
debate

Plural number: arguments.

Phrases

main argument
main argument

convincing argument
convincing argument

command line argument
command line option

similar argument
similar argument

new argument
new proof

usual arguments
ordinary reasoning

heated argument
heated argument

serious argument
serious quarrel

scientific argument
scientific discussion

Offers

This argument is totally ridiculous. Forget it!
This is a completely ridiculous argument. Forget about him!

We had an argument about it last night.
We were arguing about this last night.

It's the first argument that I"ll use.
This will be the first argument I use.

They spent hours in argument about the future of Japan.
They argued for hours about the future of Japan.

This argument is nothing more than rhetoric.
This argument is nothing more than rhetoric.

I had an argument with Tom yesterday.
Yesterday Tom and I had an argument.

I had an argument with Tom about the use of marijuana.
I had an argument with Tom about using marijuana.

The argument weighed with him.
This argument carried weight with him.

Settle the argument soon.
Settle differences quickly.

They picked Tom's argument to pieces.
They smashed Tom's arguments to smithereens.

He presented an argument for the war.
He made the case for war.

The argument has no force.
This argument is not convincing.

This argument is pure rhetoric.
This argument is pure rhetoric.

The argument ended in a fight.
The dispute ended in a fight.

The familiar argument against a proposed action that it is premature.
A familiar argument against the proposed measure is that it is premature.

You just complicate the argument when you split hairs that way.
You only complicate matters by arguing about little things.

Tom had a big argument with Mary.
Tom had a big argument with Masha.

Perhaps he had an argument with his wife, but it"s out of the question that he hit her.
Perhaps he had a conflict with his wife, but there is no question of him hitting her.

The accident was a strong argument for new safety measures.
The incident became a strong argument in favor of strengthening security measures.

There was much argument for and against the bill.
There were many arguments both for and against the bill.

Parliament members had a raucus argument over the Wiretapping Law.
A heated debate has erupted among members of Parliament over the wiretapping law.

Tom had an argument with Mary.
Tom had a quarrel with Mary.

I disagree with you argument on every point.
I disagree with you on all points.

Only in philosophy can you use a circular argument and get praised for it.
Only in philosophy can one use a vicious circle in a proof and receive high marks for it.

They amplified them argument by new facts.
They supported their argument with new facts.

His argument was far from rational.
His argument was far from rational.