Arguing over some idea is primarily necessary for its architect. It's only an argument that can demonstrate all its weak and controversial points. An argument makes it possible to polish the diamond of the idea into a valuable jewel.
Loving communication is a criterion of knowledge. If there is no love between people, they will argue, generating differences between them, i.e. form, i.e. lies. The truth isn't born in an argument, only a lie is born in an argument.
The point of a pile of sand is to bring the General to the particular, to make one out of many. When you have a square in your hands and your opponent has a circle, you can argue until you are hoarse about who is right. You will endlessly Bang your head against the wall, proving who is right. This is what idealists do all their lives. Proving other people that they are right and others are wrong. That's why idealists live in hell, that's why idealists ' lives are sad. The world is not perfect, it hurts them. Square lovers suffer when they see a circle. Circle lovers go crazy when they see a square. Syntalism proposes to destroy a square and a circle, turning them into heaps of sand, and then it will become noticeable that they are two identical heaps, and there is no subject for argument.
No need to argue, no need to justify anything. You need to listen carefully and think about how you can use the situation for the benefit of the case. Even if I disagree, there is no need to argue. Say, "all right, all right, let's think."