Consensus Between Violence And Argument Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Consensus Between Violence And Argument - Essay Example Eristic dialogue covers argumentation, a social debate where victory over an antagonist is the primary goal. This art of right argument protects their self-interest incoherent dialogue and in the process of dialogue. The art of argumentation is used in law, in trials when preparing arguments for court presentation and in the testing legitimacy of evidence.Right argument comprises identifying premises where conclusions are derived, the establishment of â€Å"burden of proof† to determine the person who made an initial claim and identifying goals of contributors in dialogue. At the end of an argument, a valid conclusion must be given with good reason explaining the same. A good argument must be built with two premises and one concluding remark. Argumentation is good in a situation where evidence does not exist especially in handling scientific, epistemic, nature, and moral where science cannot apply. Violence is good in handling dispute like border disputes, insurgency, and host ility.In politics, some kinds of argumentation are morally wrong, and some kinds of violence are morally right. Argumentation is never a solution in many nations since it only works when there is peace in the nation, and no other nation wants to attack the nation in question. Argumentation is morally upright only if the nations under conflict also handle disputes through argumentation. If the nations under disagreement handle the dispute in different angles, then violence is morally right for a nation to defend itself from intrusion.