Quotes about argument
page 5

Taslima Nasrin photo
Richard von Mises photo

“Starting from a logically clear concept of probability, based on experience, using arguments which are usually called statistical, we can discover truth in wide domains of human interest.”

Richard von Mises (1883–1953) Austrian physicist and mathematician

Sixth Lecture, Statistical Problems in Physics, p. 220
Probability, Statistics And Truth - Second Revised English Edition - (1957)

Nancy Grace photo

“On the death penalty:(the argument that it costs more to appeal death row convictions than to imprison someone for life.) "Ken Starr gave me the perfect comeback on that," she scoffs. "How many millions of dollars were we willing to spend to show that the President had oral sex?"”

Nancy Grace (1959) American legal commentator, television host, television journalist, and former prosecutor

The Intervention Magazine, interventionmag.com http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=408,

Jane Roberts photo
John Maynard Keynes photo
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu photo
Alfred de Zayas photo
John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton photo
Merrill McPeak photo
Milton Friedman photo
John McCain photo

“I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time. But that's no comfort. That's no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America's economy are strong.”

John McCain (1936–2018) politician from the United States

Interview with Peter Cook on Bloomberg TV http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/john_mccain_on_bloomberg_tv.html regarding economic progress during the Bush administration, 17 April 2008
2000s, 2008

Lewis H. Lapham photo

“Unlike every other other nation in the world, the United States defines itself as a hypothesis and constitutes itself as an argument.”

Lewis H. Lapham (1935) American journalist

Time Lines, p. 64
Waiting For The Barbarians (1997)

Alex Salmond photo
Rose Wilder Lane photo

“American clipper ships opened the British ports to free trade. Half a century of American smuggling and rebellion and costly ineffectual blockades; seven years of war in America, and the loss of the thirteen colonies; and all the sound and sensible arguments of English liberals and economists, could not break down the British planned economy. American clipper ships did it.”

Rose Wilder Lane (1886–1968) American journalist

Source: Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority (1943), p. 239

https://mises.org/system/tdf/The%20Discovery%20of%20Freedom_2.pdf?file=1&type=document Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority

Gancho Tsenov photo
Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz photo
Patrick Nielsen Hayden photo
H.L. Mencken photo
Benjamin Ricketson Tucker photo
Paul Krugman photo
Alan Keyes photo
Daniel Dennett photo
Aron Ra photo
Daniel Handler photo
Charles Krauthammer photo
Frederick Douglass photo
Susan Neiman photo
Ralph Waldo Emerson photo
George Boole photo
Donald Barthelme photo
Richard Pipes photo
Heinrich Robert Zimmer photo

“In Sartre's style of argument, German metaphysics met French sophistry in a kind of European Coal and Steel Community producing nothing but rhetorical gas.”

Clive James (1939–2019) Australian author, critic, broadcaster, poet, translator and memoirist

'Jean-Paul Sartre', p. 671
Essays and reviews, Cultural Amnesia: Notes in the Margin of My Time (2007)

Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax photo
Tryon Edwards photo

“Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot be destroyed by logic.”

Tryon Edwards (1809–1894) American theologian

Source: A Dictionary of Thoughts, 1891, p. 26.

Bill Clinton photo
Amir Taheri photo

“So, is “Caliph Ibrahim” of the Islamic State an extremist, a militant, a terrorist or an Islamic fighter? None of the above. All those labels imply behavior that makes some sort of sense in terms of human reality and normal ideologies. Yet the Islamic State and its kindred have broken out of the entire conceivable range of political activity, even its extreme forms. A “militant” spends much of his time promoting an idea or a political program within acceptable rules of behavior. The neo-Islamists, by contrast, recognize no rules apart from those they themselves set; they have no desire to win an argument through hard canvassing. They don’t even seek to impose a point of view; they seek naked and brutal domination. A “terrorist,” meanwhile, tries to instill fear in an adversary from whom he demands specific concessions. Yet the Islamic State et al. use mass murder to such ends. They don’t want to persuade or cajole anyone to do anything in particular; they want everything. “Islamic fighter” is equally inapt. An Islamic fighter is a Muslim who fights a hostile infidel who is trying to prevent Muslims from practicing their faith. That was not the situation in Mosul. No one was preventing the city’s Muslim majority from practicing their faith, let alone forcing them to covert to another religion. Yet the Islamic State came, conquered and began to slaughter. The Islamic State kills people because it can. And in both Syria and Iraq it has killed more Muslims than members of any other religious community. How, then, can we define a phenomenon that has made even al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Khomeinist gangs appear “moderate” in comparison? The international community faced a similar question in the 18th century when pirates acted as a law onto themselves, ignoring the most basic norms of human interaction. The issue was discussed in long negotiations that led to the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) and the Treaty of Rastadt (1714) and developed a new judicial concept: the crime against humanity. Those who committed that crime would qualify as “enemies of mankind” — in Latin, hostis generis humanis. Individuals and groups convicted of such a crime were no longer covered by penal codes or even the laws of war. They’d set themselves outside humanity by behaving like wild beasts… Neo-Islamist groups represent a cocktail of nihilism and crimes against humanity. Like the pirates of yesteryear, they’ve attracted criminals from many different nationalities… Having embarked on genocide, the neo-Islamists do not represent an Iraqi or Syrian or Nigerian problem, but a problem for humanity as a whole. They are not enemies of any particular religion, sect or government but enemies of mankind. They deserve to be treated as such (as do the various governments and semi-governmental “charities” that help them). To deal with these enemies of mankind, we need much more than frozen bank accounts and visa restrictions.”

Amir Taheri (1942) Iranian journalist

"Beyond terrorism: ISIS and other enemies of humanity" http://nypost.com/2014/08/20/beyond-terrorism-isis-and-other-enemies-of-humanity/, New York Post (August 20, 2014).
New York Post

Christopher Hitchens photo
Owen Lovejoy photo
Noam Chomsky photo
Hakim Bey photo
Carl Sagan photo
Benjamin Franklin photo

“Your argument is sound, nothing but sound.”

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) American author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic activist, …

Anonymous quip quoted in an essay in Logic, an Introduction (1950) by Lionel Ruby. A Benjamin Franklin quote immediately follows, so this statement was misattributed to Franklin.
Misattributed

John Scott photo

“I was with you, Mr. Scott—till I heard your argument.”

John Scott (1751–1838) British barrister and politician, born 1751

Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow, related by Scott in Horace Twiss, The Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon (1844), p. 79.

Samuel Vince photo

“A very eminent writer has observed, that "the conversion of the Gentile world, whether we consider the difficulties attending it, the opposition made to it, the wonderful work wrought to accomplish it, or the happy effects and consequences of it, may be considered as a more illustrious evidence of God's power, than even our Saviour's miracles of casting out devils, healing the sick, and raising the dead." Indeed, a miracle said to have been wrought without any attending circumstances to justify such an exertion of divine power, could not easily be rendered credible; and our author's argument proves no more. If it were related, that about 1700 years ago, a man was raised from the dead, without its answering any other end than that of restoring him to life, Iconfess that no degree of evidence could induce me tobelieve it; but if the moral government of God appeared in that event, and there were circumstances attending it which could not be accounted for by any human means, the fact becomes credible. When two extraordinary events are thus connected, the proof of one established the truth of the other. Our author has reasoned upon the fact as standing alone, in which case it would not be easy to disprove some of his reasoning; but the fact should be considered in a moral view - as connected with the establishment of a pure religion, and it then becomes credible. In the proof of any circumstance, we must consider every principle which tends to establish it; whereas our author, by considering the case of a man said to have been raised from the dead, simpli in a physical point of view, without any reference to a moral end, endavours to show that it cannot be rendered credible; and, from such principles, we may admit his conclusions without affecting the credibility of Christianity. The general principle on which he establishes his argument, is not the great foundation upon which the evidence of Christianity rests. He says, "Notestimony can be sufficient to establish a miracle, unless it be of such a kind, that the falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endavours to prove." Now this reasoning, at furthest, can only be admitted in those cases where the fact has nothing but testimony to establish it. But the proofs of Christianity do not rest simply upon the testimony of its first promulgators, and that of those who were affterwards the instruments of communicating it; but they rest principally upon the acknowledged and very extraordinary affects which were produced by the preaching of a few unlearned, obscure persons, who taught "Christ crucified;" and it is upon these indisuptable matters of ffact which we reason; and when the effects are totally unaccountable upon any principle which we can collect from the operation of human means, we must either admit miracles, or admit an effect without an adequate cause. Also, when the proof of any position depends upon arguments drawn from various sources, all concutring to establish its turh, to select some one circumstance, and atrempt to show that that alone is not sufficient to render the fact credible, and thence infer that it is not ture, is a conclusion not to be admitted. But it is thus that our author has endavoured to destroy the credibiliry of Christianity, the evidences of which depend upon a great variety of circumstances and facts which are indisputably true, all cooperating to confirm its truth; but an examination of these falls not whithin the plan here proposed. He rests all his arguments upon the extraordinary nature of the fact, considered alone by itself; for a common fact, with the same evidence, would immediately be admitted. I have endavoured to show, that the extraordinary nature, as much as the mosst common events are necessary to fulfill the usual dispensations of Providence, and therefore the Deity was then direted by the same motive as in a more ordinary case, that of affording us such assitance as our moral condition renders necessary. In the establishment of a pur religion, the proof of its divine origin may require some very extraordinary circumstances which may never afterwards be requisite, and accordingly we find that they have not happened. Here is therefore a perfect concistencty in the operation of the Deity, in his moral government, and not a violation of the laws of nature: Secondly, the fact is immediately connected with others which are indisputably true, and which, without the supossition of the truth of that fact, would be, at least, equally miraculous. Thus I conceive the reasoning of our author to be totally inconclusive; and the argumentss which have been employed to prove the fallacy of his conclusions, appear at the same time, fully to justify our belief in, and prove the moral certainty of, our holy religion.”

Samuel Vince (1749–1821) British mathematician, astronomer and physicist

Source: The Credibility of Christianity Vindicated, p. 27; As quoted in " Book review http://books.google.nl/books?id=52tAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA262," in The British Critic, Volume 12 (1798). F. and C. Rivington. p. 262-263

Charles Darwin photo
Gloria Estefan photo

“When I wrote "Words Get in the Way" my husband and I had just had a horrendous argument.... [After it was an international hit] My husband said, "We have to have more arguments."”

Gloria Estefan (1957) Cuban-American singer-songwriter, actress and divorciada

Gayle King XM satellite radio program (October 23, 2006)
2007, 2008

Silvia Federici photo
Eddie Izzard photo
John Ralston Saul photo
Howard S. Becker photo
Zuo Zongtang photo

“We shall first confront them [the Russians] with arguments…and then settle it on the battlefields.”

Zuo Zongtang (1812–1885) Qing dynasty general

Late Ch'ing, 1800-1911, John King Fairbank, Kwang-ching Liu, Denis Crispin Twitchett, 1980, Cambridge University Press, 0521220297, 93, 754, 2010-6-28 http://books.google.com/books?id=pEfWaxPhdnIC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=We+shall+first+confront+them+%5Bthe+Russians%5D+with+arguments...and+then+settle+it+on+the+battlefields&source=bl&ots=jRX5wodmU9&sig=xZvdGcwnC8SwGFbdpfLoBqE1OJo&hl=en&ei=CchPS4_LE9KmlAfXkI26Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=We%20shall%20first%20confront%20them%20the%20russians%20with%20arguments%20and%20then%20settle%20it%20on%20the%20battlefields&f=false,
Modern Chinese warfare, 1795-1989, Bruce A. Elleman, 2001, Psychology Press, 0415214742, 79, 363, 2010-6-28 http://books.google.com/books?id=Md801mHEeOkC&pg=PA79&dq=We+shall+first+confront+them+%5Bthe+Russians%5D+with+arguments...and+then+settle+it+on+the+battlefields&hl=en&ei=ogqYTOn6KIL98AaQqrwq&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=We%20shall%20first%20confront%20them%20%5Bthe%20Russians%5D%20&f=false,
The rise of modern China, John Immanuel Chung-yueh Hsü, 1995, Oxford University Press, 0195087208, 322, 1017, 2010-6-28 http://books.google.com/books?ei=ogqYTOn6KIL98AaQqrwq&ct=result&id=1aBwAAAAMAAJ&dq=We+shall+first+confront+them+%5Bthe+Russians%5D+with+arguments...and+then+settle+it+on+the+battlefields&q=We+shall+first+confront+,
China and the international system, 1840-1949: power, presence, and perceptions in a century of humiliation, David Scott, 2008, SUNY Press, 0791476278, 104, 2010-6-28 http://books.google.com/books?id=6U_DPS4vfO0C&pg=PA104&dq=We+shall+first+confront+them+%5Bthe+Russians%5D+with+arguments&hl=en&ei=rayuTJ2fHsL38Ab1uNCoCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false,

Carol J. Adams photo
James Jeans photo
Clive Staples Lewis photo
Robert A. Heinlein photo

““The Great Egg must love human beings, he made a lot of them.”
“Same argument applies to oysters, only more so.””

Source: Beyond This Horizon (1948; originally serialized in 1942), Chapter 13, “No more privacy than a guppy in an aquarium”, p. 127

Ludovico Ariosto photo

“Where women are, are arguments and strife.”

Canto XLIII, stanza 120 (tr. B. Reynolds)
Orlando Furioso (1532)

Harry V. Jaffa photo

“Pro-slavery impulse still governs the Democratic Party, the party of government sinecures. It is the party that wants to use political power to tax us not for any common good, but to eat while we work. Consider the Great Society and its legacy. In the fall of 1964, I was on the speech-writing staff of the Goldwater campaign. In September and October I went on a number of forays to college campuses, where I debated spokesmen for our opponents. My argument always started from here. In 1964 the economy, thanks to the Kennedy tax cuts, was growing at the remarkable annual rate of four percent. But federal revenues were growing at 20 percent; five times as fast. The real issue in the election, I said, was what was to happen to that cornucopia of revenue. Barry Goldwater would use it to reduce the deficit and to further reduce taxes; Lyndon Johnson would use it to start vast new federal programs. At that point I could not say what programs, but I knew that the real purpose of them would be to create a new class of dependents upon the Democratic Party. The ink was hardly dry on the election returns before Johnson invented the war on poverty; and proved my prediction correct. One did not need to be cynical to see that the poor were not a reason for the expansion of bureaucracy; the expansion of bureaucracy was a reason for the poor. Every failure to reduce poverty was always represented as another reason to increase expenditures on the poor. The ultimate beneficiary was the Democratic Party. Every federal bureaucrat became in effect a precinct captain, delivering the votes of his constituents. His job was to enlarge the pool of constituents. But every increase in that pool meant a diminution of our property and our freedom.”

Harry V. Jaffa (1918–2015) American historian and collegiate professor

1990s, The Party of Lincoln vs. The Party of Bureaucrats (1996)

Tim O'Brien photo
Daniel McCallum photo

“They [human beings] are unwilling to gamble that God made those people who are skilled at rational argumentation uniquely virtuous. They protect themselves and others from cleverness by obscuring their preferences.”

James G. March (1928–2018) American sociologist

Jame G. March "How Decisions Happen in Organizations"; Human-Computer Interaction, 1991, Volume 6 pp. 95-117

Thomas Carlyle photo

“For being a man worth any thousand men, the response your Knox, your Cromwell gets, is an argument for two centuries whether he was a man at all. God's greatest gift to this Earth is sneeringly flung away.”

Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) Scottish philosopher, satirical writer, essayist, historian and teacher

1840s, Heroes and Hero-Worship (1840), The Hero As King

Chris Rock photo

“Remember when we was young, everybody used to have these arguments about who's better, Michael Jackson or Prince? Prince won!”

Chris Rock (1965) American comedian, actor, screenwriter, television producer, film producer, and director

Never Scared (HBO, 2004)

Alastair Reynolds photo
John Horgan (journalist) photo
George Holmes Howison photo
Margaret Thatcher photo
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu photo
Aldous Huxley photo
Howard S. Becker photo
Pat Conroy photo

“Cadets are people. Behind the gray suits, beneath the Pom-pom and Shako and above the miraculously polished shoes, blood flows through veins and arteries, hearts thump in a regular pattern, stomachs digest food, and kidneys collect waste. Each cadet is unique, a functioning unit of his own, a distinct and separate integer from anyone else. Part of the irony of military schools stems from the fact that everyone in these schools is expected to act precisely the same way, register the same feelings, and respond in the same prescribed manner. The school erects a rigid structure of rules from which there can be no deviation. The path has already been carved through the forest and all the student must do is follow it, glancing neither to the right nor left, and making goddamn sure he participates in no exploration into the uncharted territory around him. A flaw exists in this system. If every person is, indeed, different from every other person, then he will respond to rules, regulations, people, situations, orders, commands, and entreaties in a way entirely depending on his own individual experiences. Te cadet who is spawned in a family that stresses discipline will probably have less difficulty in adjusting than the one who comes from a broken home, or whose father is an alcoholic, or whose home is shattered by cruel arguments between the parents. Yet no rule encompasses enough flexibility to offer a break to a boy who is the product of one of these homes.”

Source: The Boo (1970), p. 10

Kamal Haasan photo
Giacomo Casanova photo
Sam Harris photo
Isoroku Yamamoto photo

“Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.”

Isoroku Yamamoto (1884–1943) Japanese Marshal Admiral

As quoted in At Dawn We Slept (1981) by Gordon W. Prange, p. 11; this quote was stated in a letter to Ryoichi Sasakawa prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Minus the last sentence, it was taken out of context and interpreted in the U.S. as a boast that Japan would conquer the entire contiguous United States. The omitted sentence showed Yamamoto's counsel of caution towards a war that would cost Japan dearly.

Martin Rushent photo
Grover Norquist photo

“Yeah, the good news about the move to abolish the death tax, the tax where they come and look at how much money you've got when you die, how much gold is in your teeth and they want half of it, is that — you're right, there's an exemption for — I don't know — maybe a million dollars now, and it's scheduled to go up a little bit. However, 70 percent of the American people want to abolish that tax. Congress, the House and Senate, have three times voted to abolish it. The president supports abolishing it, so that tax is going to be abolished. I think it speaks very much to the health of the nation that 70-plus percent of Americans want to abolish the death tax, because they see it as fundamentally unjust. The argument that some who played at the politics of hate and envy and class division will say, 'Yes, well, that's only 2 percent,' or as people get richer 5 percent in the near future of Americans likely to have to pay that tax. I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. 'I mean, it's not you, it's somebody else.' And this country, people who may not make earning a lot of money the centerpiece of their lives, they may have other things to focus on, they just say it's not just. If you've paid taxes on your income once, the government should leave you alone. Shouldn't come back and try and tax you again.”

Grover Norquist (1956) Conservative Lobbyist

interview with NPR's Terry Gross on the program Fresh Air, October 2, 2003.
2003

Keith Ward photo
Francis Crick photo
Gilbert Ryle photo

“A single fact will often spoil an interesting argument.”

William Feather (1889–1981) Publisher, Author

Featherisms (2008)

Alexander H. Stephens photo

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the north, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.”

Alexander H. Stephens (1812–1883) Vice President of the Confederate States (in office from 1861 to 1865)

The Cornerstone Speech (1861)

Winston S. Churchill photo

“Everyone can see the arguments against the English-speaking peoples becoming the policemen of the world.”

Winston S. Churchill (1874–1965) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

To End War, Collier's, 29 June 1935
Reproduced in The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill, Vol I, Churchill at War, Centenary Edition (1976), Library of Imperial History, p. 351-2. ISBN 0903988429
The 1930s

George Holmes Howison photo
Andrew Gelman photo
John Hall photo
Harry V. Jaffa photo
Roy Moore photo
Alain de Botton photo
Sam Harris photo

“The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so.”

Sam Harris (1967) American author, philosopher and neuroscientist

[Sam Harris, 2 January 2006, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html, "Science Must Destroy Religion", The Huffington Post, 2006-10-16]
2000s

Jim Baggott photo