Force of Reason vs. Force of Arms
An argument is similar to arm wrestling. The winner is always determined by a mutually agreed upon recognition of the facts.
If for example the obvious loser is inclined to cry "Foul" then the argument could escalate into something more violent. Honor is at stake.
In the old days the escalation of a contention concerning honor did escalate into a duel. The classic example concerns the honor of Alexander Humiliation and the honor of Aaron Burr.
"Angry and depressed over his defeat, Burr decided to try and restore his reputation by challenging Hamilton to a duel. Burr may have hoped that Hamilton would apologize, but the communication between the men escalated until a duel was unavoidable. On July 11, 1804, on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, Burr shot Hamilton dead. In New York and New Jersey, Burr was charged with murder. And in much of the Northeast, Hamilton was mourned as a fallen hero. But to many Americans, particularly in the South, Burr was viewed as a man who had rightfully defended his honor."
I am not going to argue a contention of fact as to who really won. The evidence suggests that Burr won. I tend to agree. Alexander Hamilton died. Alexander Hamilton was one of the worst criminals in human history according to me. He is no longer alive thanks to Burr. I think Burr was too late to provide humanity with any real service. So much for my force of reason. I can't argue the point anyway unless someone offers reasonable competition. I can be reached at this address. I am not inclined to be violent so a duel is out of the question.
Back in the old days people did settle their difference with deadly force. These days people who resort to violence are somewhat less honorable. I think Alexander Hamilton would be proud. George Washington, on the other hand, would be beside himself. George traded in liberty for despotism with the help of old Al. The force of Reason can be a powerful thing.
Unfortunately there is this thing called falsehood. There is a reason for falsehood and someone very special presents a compelling argument identifying that reason.
It goes like this:
"Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE."
It would not be unreasonable to argue a perspective honoring the author of the above wisdom with a title such as "qualified expert".
Back to the arm wrestle where the loser cries "foul".
Before the duel escalates into violence the pair may argue the wisdom of seeking a third person to help settle the contest.
The loser can then argue his contention in an effort to convince the third party to adopt a perspective in favor of the losers perspective.
The dialog might go something like this:
Loser:
He cheated.
Judge:
Why?
Loser:
Huh?
Judge:
Why did you ask me to participate in this contest?
Loser:
He cheated and once you understand that he cheated I can win.
Judge:
Win what?
Loser:
Ahhhh. I'm not sure. Well, ahhhh, I know! I can win the argument.
Judge:
Win the argument?
Loser:
Yea. He cheated and when you understand that he cheating then I win the argument?
Judge:
So you want me to confirm this cheating stuff so that you can win the argument?
Loser:
Are you trying to twist my words around or what?
Judge:
Not at all. I'll go back to doing what I was doing.
Winner:
He dude can you stick around for a minute and watch me destroy this loser in an arm wrestle.
Judge:
Sure thing.