Arguments are a weak man's weapon?

They say that arguments are a weak man's weapon.
Does a strong man need's to be unable to argue?
Where lies the strength of a man?
Is it his brain* and mental abilities which signifies his actual strength or something else? And if it is his mental caliber and ability to judge and take reasonable justified actions, then how can be arguments a weak man's weapon?

Are arguments a weapon?
According to me, Weak, unreasonable and inappropiate arguments are surely a weak man’s weapon!

A strong man’s weapon to end a wordy/*argumentative* tussle is always sound, reasonable and positive arguments.
Being argumentative is not wrong ( It’s pretty natural for human beings who have got the machine called brain in their hardware which is pretty good at reasoning thinking and analyzing argumentatively), yet being a silly cynic unreasonable arguer is obviously repulsive.
What do you say about it?

i cudnt agree more :)

Conflict is a part of human nature, as each and every person is a unique individual, and there in will always have an opinion that will be based on how their life was lived, and how they learned to be who they are.

If the above is true, then two people will always have something that they stand differently on, and if the degree of passion they feel about that subject is great enough, then a conflict will arise in their interests and they will argue.


But not all arguments are bad. Some are good, and let both people know that they are strong and will stand up for themselves. In this, we learn about each other through our conflict which makes us stronger better people. Even if sometimes, the arguments can lead to bad endings.

To stand up for your beliefs is a great strength some people search for while they live their lives. To sit idly by and let others tell you what your beliefs should be, is the way many have to live to survive.

But if you let someone else live your life, is it really a life at all?

In this, arguments can be a strength. But if one let's hate into their passion for their stand, then the argument weakens them. To argue is to stand for yourself. To hate is to fail at supporting yourself stably and in a strong way, and in that, an argument becomes a tool of the weak.


These are my thoughts on this.

Depends on your definition of 'argue'. Modern usage tends to see it as a bad thing - non constructive, uncontrolled and destructive. However, the meaning covers more than that. A debate is a form of argument, just an argument that has rules and boundaries.

The trick is to present your views and opinions in a way that allows others to voice their own opinions in a controlled and safe environment.

The word argument comes from Old French arguere which in turn comes from Latin argūmentum and means - to make clear. I see nothing weak in an argument in the sense of a logical sequence of statements to justify a position or conclusion. But argument in the sense of quarrel means that control of a situation has been lost and in that sense then yes it is a weakness.

Argument is persuasion, the ability to influence the thoughts of the other person and to steer that person in the direction you want. This seems to me to be a natural and necessary tool for a dom.

I don't know who said that arguments are a weak man's weapon, sounds like the sort of thing a person whose only method to resolve difference is force would say.

Sense and reason is the essence of being human. It is the sense and reason that makes us fundamentally different from other animals. Humans' violence is, in essence, no different from animals' violence. The reasons put in an argument is thus better than any violence.

Psychological strength is the most important strength for reasoning beings. It is often not until you lose your temper that you take to violence. The person who takes to violence first is the psychologically weakest person. Thus, I would rather say that violence is the weak man's argument.

In Sweden, there is a saying to this effect: when no arguments are left, the fists will be used.

Without argument, society wouldn't get anywhere fast.

Arguments are used all the time, you just don't notice that you are utilising them. Basically, an argument simply presents premises which support a conclusion. We use these chains of reasoning all the time.

[For example]
Premise 1: Glass breaks when dropped from a height.
Premise 2: The vase is glass.
Therefore: Dropping the vase will probably break it.

Without argument, we would not be able to advance as a society - we would have no way of proving or recording our conlusions. Unfortunately this is necessary, particularly if the arguments, in turn, support conclusions which lead to other arguments (which occurs often in philosophy, science, sociology etc.)

Without argument, we could not form our own conclusions or evaluate other points of view. We could not recieve new information in terms of: [X] and [Y] therefore [Q], so we would have to try and reach every conclusion by ourselves. Oh, wait! Unfortunately, without argument, we couldn't do that either.

Fallacious arguments are the domain of the weak minded and foolish.

The argument (Ie: the phycological manipulation of one's peers through a non-physical medium) is simply one way of achieveing a desired result with less physical interaction.

Non verbal forms of comunication such as body postures, hand gestures, even facial expressions as well as more complex behaviours are just as vital; if not more so, to the proccess.

It is a basic part of communication in both animals and man. We just have a larger more extensive capacity for interaction.

Despite many stereo types:

Physical prowess and intellect need not be inversly proportional to each other.

I may have to dissagree. though a logical discussion of ideas is a great way to further your own knowledge and make positive changes, I don'tthink that is what the saying is talking about. I think it is more about contention. haven't you ever been talking to someone who sounds more like a chiuauaha than a person? who is arguing either to establish his position in the group or to defend a undefendable position than because he feels that his opinion is valid?

Lao Tsu said - "he who knows, does not speak, he who speaks does not know"