Joining me in the discussion are Congressman Harold Stern, a proV advocate.

And the tools are highly inaudible so unlike that, that statement that was done before.

I had him in that discussion.

So that's the, the goal of, of this segment.

Let's not argue for the sake of arguing.

So we have these models argument as war, argument as proof and argument as performance.

The data to be discussed below was collected in the following way.

listen to at least three radio stations a day.

And finally this is really the worst thing arguments don't seem to get us anywhere they're dead ends.

Well, there are some other puzzles.

He wins his arguments by logical reasoning.

They argued outside the Pig 'n Whistle.

For the sake of argument, let's say that

You're such a debater, M. Pierre.

Define controversial.

His argument is more radical than yours.

But with Africa, let's start being careful about this.

I've heard that argument before.

Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue,

She argues for the sake of arguing.

She argues just for the sake of arguing.

Then we have what I believe are the ideas in conflict.

You had a new idea Flattr.

At the meeting he monopolized the discussion and completely disrupted the proceeding.

How does it apply over here? And you answer my question.

We'll talk about a learning algorithm

Because I have nothing to hide.

The matter is not open for debate.

Discuss.

What is the basis for the argument?

One is why do we argue? Who benefits from arguments?

We're gonna all get sore throats if we keep it up.

What do you call the leader of a republican country?

So, how can we find ways to make arguments yield something positive?

Is intellectual property a fair system?

She argues just for the sake of arguing.

This is a case with no room for generalizations or arguments

And what that means is that I argue.

Why don't we discuss it over Chinese?

Mega doses of vitamin C and complete danger avoidance?

That doesn't seem very fair, which brings me to the third argument, the argument of the heart.

His argument is rational.

This magenta distance minus this light blue distance.

Women will have the last word.

This is a discussion around an article called,