义项分布 · 点义项筛选原句
n. 论证20 次
Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co-authors say reason might play a bigger role.
他认为，最不能打动人的是理性论证，尽管他的合著者说理性可能发挥了更大的作用。
Why, the argument goes, should a car-driving pensioner from Lincolnshire have to subsidise the daily commute of a stockbroker from Surrey?
按这种说法，一位来自林肯郡、开车出行的退休老人凭什么要为一位来自萨里郡的股票经纪人的日常通勤提供补贴呢？
A move back to self-sufficiency, the argument goes, would boost the farming industry, political sovereignty and even the nation’s health.
这种观点认为，回归自给自足将促进农业、增强政治主权，甚至改善国民健康。
You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments.
你会乐于用糟糕的论证去说服别人。
Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good.
下次你陈述自己的立场时，为你的主张构建一个论证，并诚实地问问自己这个论证是否站得住脚。
Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good.
下次你陈述自己的立场时，为你的主张构建一个论证，并诚实地问问自己这个论证是否站得住脚。
展开其余 14 条收起
Spell out their argument fully and charitably.
完整而宽容地阐明他们的论证。
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 weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
当然，许多讨论并没有这么成功。尽管如此，我们仍需注意不要过快地指责对手的论证糟糕。我们需要学会如何恰当地评价论证。评价的很大一部分是指出糟糕的论证，但我们也需要承认对手的好论证，并用同样的批判标准要求自己。谦逊要求你认识到自己论证中的弱点，有时还要接受对立一方的理由。
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 weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
当然，许多讨论并没有这么成功。尽管如此，我们仍需注意不要过快地指责对手的论证糟糕。我们需要学会如何恰当地评价论证。评价的很大一部分是指出糟糕的论证，但我们也需要承认对手的好论证，并用同样的批判标准要求自己。谦逊要求你认识到自己论证中的弱点，有时还要接受对立一方的理由。
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 weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
当然，许多讨论并没有这么成功。尽管如此，我们仍需注意不要过快地指责对手的论证糟糕。我们需要学会如何恰当地评价论证。评价的很大一部分是指出糟糕的论证，但我们也需要承认对手的好论证，并用同样的批判标准要求自己。谦逊要求你认识到自己论证中的弱点，有时还要接受对立一方的理由。
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 weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
当然，许多讨论并没有这么成功。尽管如此，我们仍需注意不要过快地指责对手的论证糟糕。我们需要学会如何恰当地评价论证。评价的很大一部分是指出糟糕的论证，但我们也需要承认对手的好论证，并用同样的批判标准要求自己。谦逊要求你认识到自己论证中的弱点，有时还要接受对立一方的理由。
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.
有一种更好的方式来赢得争论。设想你赞成提高我们州的最低工资，而我不赞成。如果你大喊“赞成”，我大喊“反对”，我们谁都学不到任何东西。我们既不理解也不尊重对方，也没有妥协或合作的基础。相反，假设你给出一个合理的论证：全职工人不应该生活在贫困之中。然后我用另一个合理的论证来反驳：更高的最低工资会迫使企业雇用更少的人、缩短雇用时间。这样我们就能理解彼此的立场，并认识到我们共同的价值观，因为我们都关心贫困的工人。
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.
有一种更好的方式来赢得争论。设想你赞成提高我们州的最低工资，而我不赞成。如果你大喊“赞成”，我大喊“反对”，我们谁都学不到任何东西。我们既不理解也不尊重对方，也没有妥协或合作的基础。相反，假设你给出一个合理的论证：全职工人不应该生活在贫困之中。然后我用另一个合理的论证来反驳：更高的最低工资会迫使企业雇用更少的人、缩短雇用时间。这样我们就能理解彼此的立场，并认识到我们共同的价值观，因为我们都关心贫困的工人。
They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone — a vast storehouse of digital information — is similar to, say, going through a suspect’s purse.
他们首先应该摒弃加州站不住脚的论点，即查看智能手机——一个庞大的数字信息库——的内容，类似于翻查嫌疑人的钱包。
But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.
但大法官们不应全盘接受加州的论点。
The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of ____
作者对加州论点的态度是____
California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution.
加州的论点违背了宪法原则。
This argument has attracted a lot of attention, via the success of the book Race Against the Machine, by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, who both hail from MIT’s Center for Digital Business.
随着《与机器赛跑》一书的成功，这一观点引起了广泛关注。该书作者埃里克·布林约尔松和安德鲁·麦卡菲均来自麻省理工学院数字商务中心。
This is a powerful argument, and a scary one.
这是一个有力的观点，也是一个令人恐惧的观点。
This, however, would be a knee-jerk reaction to a subtle argument.
然而，这只是对一个微妙论点的本能反应。
n. 争论（吵），辩论12 次
These views of arguments also undermine reason.
这些对争论的看法也会损害理性。
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.
这些方法可以帮助你赢得每一场争论——不是在击败对手这种无益的意义上，而是在更好的意义上：了解使人们产生分歧的问题，了解他们为什么与我们意见不同，并学会与他们交谈和合作。如果我们重新调整对争论的看法——从口头争斗或网球比赛转变为一种理性的交流，通过这种交流我们都能获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了“赢得”争论的本质含义。
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.
这些方法可以帮助你赢得每一场争论——不是在击败对手这种无益的意义上，而是在更好的意义上：了解使人们产生分歧的问题，了解他们为什么与我们意见不同，并学会与他们交谈和合作。如果我们重新调整对争论的看法——从口头争斗或网球比赛转变为一种理性的交流，通过这种交流我们都能获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了“赢得”争论的本质含义。
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.
这些方法可以帮助你赢得每一场争论——不是在击败对手这种无益的意义上，而是在更好的意义上：了解使人们产生分歧的问题，了解他们为什么与我们意见不同，并学会与他们交谈和合作。如果我们重新调整对争论的看法——从口头争斗或网球比赛转变为一种理性的交流，通过这种交流我们都能获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了“赢得”争论的本质含义。
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. Pairs 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.
如果争论就是争斗——我们常常这样看待争论——那么卡耐基就是对的。和肢体冲突一样，口头争斗也会让双方都头破血流。即使你赢了，最终也不会更好。即便争论只是竞赛——比如说网球比赛——你的前景也几乎同样黯淡。对手们两两对阵，来回击球，直到所有参赛者中产生一个胜者。其他人都是输家。正是这种想法让那么多人尽量避免争论，尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。
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. Pairs 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.
如果争论就是争斗——我们常常这样看待争论——那么卡耐基就是对的。和肢体冲突一样，口头争斗也会让双方都头破血流。即使你赢了，最终也不会更好。即便争论只是竞赛——比如说网球比赛——你的前景也几乎同样黯淡。对手们两两对阵，来回击球，直到所有参赛者中产生一个胜者。其他人都是输家。正是这种想法让那么多人尽量避免争论，尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。
展开其余 6 条收起
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. Pairs 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.
如果争论就是争斗——我们常常这样看待争论——那么卡耐基就是对的。和肢体冲突一样，口头争斗也会让双方都头破血流。即使你赢了，最终也不会更好。即便争论只是竞赛——比如说网球比赛——你的前景也几乎同样黯淡。对手们两两对阵，来回击球，直到所有参赛者中产生一个胜者。其他人都是输家。正是这种想法让那么多人尽量避免争论，尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。
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.
戴尔·卡耐基在其1936年的著作《人性的弱点》中写道：“只有一种方法……能在争论中占上风——那就是避免争论。”这种对争论的反感很普遍，但它基于一种对争论的错误看法，这种看法给我们的个人生活和社会生活造成了深刻的问题——而且在很多方面根本没有抓住争论的意义所在。
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.
戴尔·卡耐基在其1936年的著作《人性的弱点》中写道：“只有一种方法……能在争论中占上风——那就是避免争论。”这种对争论的反感很普遍，但它基于一种对争论的错误看法，这种看法给我们的个人生活和社会生活造成了深刻的问题——而且在很多方面根本没有抓住争论的意义所在。
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.
戴尔·卡耐基在其1936年的著作《人性的弱点》中写道：“只有一种方法……能在争论中占上风——那就是避免争论。”这种对争论的反感很普遍，但它基于一种对争论的错误看法，这种看法给我们的个人生活和社会生活造成了深刻的问题——而且在很多方面根本没有抓住争论的意义所在。
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.
有一种更好的方式来赢得争论。设想你赞成提高我们州的最低工资，而我不赞成。如果你大喊“赞成”，我大喊“反对”，我们谁都学不到任何东西。我们既不理解也不尊重对方，也没有妥协或合作的基础。相反，假设你给出一个合理的论证：全职工人不应该生活在贫困之中。然后我用另一个合理的论证来反驳：更高的最低工资会迫使企业雇用更少的人、缩短雇用时间。这样我们就能理解彼此的立场，并认识到我们共同的价值观，因为我们都关心贫困的工人。
The “mommy wars” of the 1990s are still going on today, prompting arguments about why women still can’t have it all and books like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, whose title has become a buzzword in its own right.
20世纪90年代的“妈妈战争”至今仍在继续，引发了关于女性为何仍不能兼得一切的争论，也催生了谢丽尔·桑德伯格的《向前一步》这类书，其书名本身就已成为流行语。
n. 理由4 次
This is not an argument against target-setting.
这并不是反对设定目标的论点。
But it is an argument for exploring consequences first.
但它是一个主张先探究后果的论点。
The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy.
西班牙的情况为支持和反对君主制双方都提供了论据。
Critics make three main arguments against gene patents: a gene is a product of nature, so it may not be patented; gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it; and patents’ monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad’s.
批评者反对基因专利的主要理由有三：基因是自然的产物，因此不能申请专利；基因专利压制而非奖励创新；专利垄断限制了人们获得像麦利亚德公司那样的基因检测。