Also, even if it doesn't, or does, or maybe its all relative etc.
What if someone, and that someone IS intelligent and NOT selfish GENERALLY, is still NOT convinced and certainly doesn't agree or find it logical, was the person making the argument necessarily wrong, and must they be confronted for it, and if they do, would the person confronting them be necessarily wrong, and why?
Hey!!!! Good job on making your post more concise man! I still didn`t understand it but that`s what we call PROGRESS!
It depends on context.
There are argument where there clearly is just one correct answer and anyone not convinced by the answer even if it includes an explanation, is just ignorant.
But there are also plenty of arguments where different opinions can all be logical and valid.
Furthermore the borderline between arguments that have just one correct answer and arguments that can have several possible answers will be different for about anyone.
The best possible example is probably religion.
For me "my holy book says so" or "you cannot explain x and y, therefore god" aren't convincing at all, but "in the history of the world whenever science found the correct answer to something, it has never been 'god did it'", is so convincing that I see all religious people as delusional, while religious believers come on a spectrum anywhere between "my belief is with certainty the only correct one" and "there must be a god, but I'm not really sure which one".
Or in other words, for me religion is always wrong and has to be confronted wherever possible, while believers of different religions or different denominations of the same religion, do see the possibility of different opinions all making sense.
A lawyer who can't make a convincing argument is in the wrong line of work.
share