opponent中等

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。

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。

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。

There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.

行业内部存在要求变革的压力，但监管者中反对变革的人坚持认为，将外人挡在律所之外，能使律师免受只顾赚钱、而不合乎职业道德地为客户服务的压力。