A. These tools can help you win every argument-not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people. Learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments—from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect, and understanding—then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.
B. Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weakness in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
C. None of these will be easy but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.
D. Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions-like, say, tennis games. Paris of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.
E. In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People , Dale Carnegie wrote: “there is only one way…to get the best of an argument-and that is to avoid it. “This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives- and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.
F. These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win-in one way.
G. There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “yes,” and I yell. “No,” neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.
41→42→F→43→44→C→45
答案：EDGBA
A.这些工具可以帮助您赢得每一次争论——不是在击败对手的无益意义上，而是在更好地了解导致人们分歧的问题上。了解他们为什么不同意我们，并学习与他们交谈和合作。如果我们重新调整我们对争论的看法——从口头打架或网球比赛到合理的交流，通过这种交流，我们都可以获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了“赢得”争论的意义的本质。
B. 当然，很多讨论都没有那么成功。不过，我们需要小心不要过快地指责对手的论点不好。我们需要学习如何正确评估它们。评估的很大一部分是指出错误的论点，但我们也需要承认反对者的好论点，并将相同的批判标准应用于自己。谦逊要求你承认自己论点中的弱点，有时还需要接受相反的理由。
C. 这些都不容易，但即使其他人拒绝，您也可以开始。下次你陈述你的立场时，为你的主张制定一个论点，并诚实地问自己你的论点是否有好处。下次你与表态的人交谈时，请他们给你一个支持他们观点的理由。充分而慈善地阐明他们的论点。公正地评估其实力。提出反对意见并仔细听取他们的答复。
D. 如果争论是打架，卡内基是对的，这就是我们经常想到的。和肢体冲突一样，口舌之争也可能让双方流血。即使你赢了，你最终也不会过得更好。如果争论甚至只是像网球比赛这样的比赛，你的前景几乎会同样黯淡。对手的巴黎来回击球，直到所有进入的人都出现一个获胜者。其他人都输了。这种想法就是为什么这么多人试图避免争论，尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。
E. 在他 1936 年的著作《如何赢得朋友和影响他人》中，戴尔·卡内基写道：“只有一种方法……可以充分利用争论——那就是避免争论。 “这种对争论的厌恶是很常见的，但这取决于对争论的错误看法，这会给我们的个人和社会生活带来深刻的问题——并且在许多方面错过了争论的初衷。
F. 这些争论的观点也削弱了理性。如果您将对话视为打架或竞争，只要不被抓住，您就可以通过作弊取胜。你会很乐意用错误的论据说服人们。你可以说他们的观点很愚蠢，或者开玩笑说他们是多么无知。这些技巧都不能帮助你理解他们、他们的立场或分裂你的问题，但它们可以帮助你以一种方式获胜。
G. 有更好的方法来赢得争论。想象一下，您赞成提高我们州的最低工资，而我不赞成。如果你大喊“是”，我也会大喊。 “不，”我们都没有学到任何东西。我们既不理解也不尊重对方，没有妥协合作的基础。相反，假设你给出一个合理的论点：全职员工不应该生活在贫困中。然后我用另一个合理的论点反驳：更高的最低工资将迫使企业在更短的时间内雇用更少的人。现在我们可以了解彼此的立场并认可我们的共同价值观，因为我们都关心有需要的工人。
