Logical Convenience

During the course of discussion a friend, an intellectual, said "what I hate most is people stick to an example given in support of an argument.......
They don’t get the point but go on to split and destroy the example."

I wondered what he said was correct or not. The basic point of a debate or an argument is, if a party gives an example to support his statement one has to defy the example to establish the incorrectness.

Logic goes mathematically on this, the underlying mathematical principle is -
‘A thousand examples given to prove something holds good are not enough, but to disprove a single example is’.

Will come back to it some other time, I thought, as my pointing it wasn't going to bring his faith in what I say, so I joined the discussion again.

As he continued with is theory suggesting learning to 'generalize' the things as and get the gist and not to kill the example. This statement again made me think- Aristotle says that is a way towards the destruction of an argument. Extending the statement to its limit will always make it fall as it is the area where its applicability is of question and it is by the alteration of these limits that people debate.

Take the example A says : Australians are the best in drama.

The opponent, B, can argue by saying : In recent competitions Europeans have more accolades of classical singing, dancing and operas.

A’s statement has fallen due to 'generalization' from drama to all theater oriented arts. Sticking to the example is the best way to defend for A. Say by saying that he had commented about drama and not theater.

As the discussion continued and I sighted examples and he tried to destroy them to approve his statement. How convenient? And yes what about the suggestion to get the gist…. did I miss something. Only this time we had switched sides and he is on the side with mathematical advantage. I wonder how one who doesn’t approve of a method, still uses it when it is to his benefit. Either the principle of argument (The Logic) has never been observed or it is just the matter of convenience.

I bet its both, as for the convenient one doesn’t need a reason, it’s the inconvenient that needs a good reason - a Logic -to go with.

It’s the ‘Logical Convenience’ that we look for. Our life is full of choices.... decisions..... questions .... Do we always choose the Logical ? Similarly do we always choose the Convenient ?

Its the 'Logical Convenience' that one follows. It always has been.