In a dispute born truth. Socrates.

And whether born?
Interesting question, let’s explore a bit. What in general is any dispute? When two people have different opinions on a particular issue and consider them right, then certainly a dispute (which in the worst case can go into sparring with beating persons). The dispute is such a spark that sometimes occurs in communication between different people, especially if those people are completely different outlook on life.

Most people argue about politics and religion. Sometimes the global debate can become the cause of wars, uprisings, revolutions and other bad things.

Once I had to travel by train in the same compartment with the Hare Krishnas and the girl Evangelical Baptist. That’s really in our compartment had religious debate, so the whole car listening. And in the end everyone was of the same opinion. And if you ask me, you brought this discussion, the dispute even to anyone any good; my answer is unequivocal – no. (Well, maybe a little training muscles of the tongue). Yes and there is no truth born?

In fact, the debate is much deeper question than it might seem at first glance. And amazingly ridiculous. As once said Einstein:
“There are only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, but I’m still not entirely sure about the universe.” Perhaps it is no secret that people are different and the whole world, no two people are alike. Someone like spinach, and who – jujube, someone caresses the ears of hard rock, but for someone sweet jazz. Not to mention about the different cultural and religious traditions, education, temperaments, psychological types (hello socionics), political beliefs, and so on.

This difference of opinion is quite natural and logical, we are all different and unique, and that’s fine. And the big problem is that some people believe their views, tastes, beliefs, only right. (According to the principle: there is only my opinion and wrong). For example, the fanatical Christians believe only Christianity the only true religion, the Muslims do not recognize anything other than Islam. In medieval times it led to the Crusades and numerous religious wars. And to whom it was necessary? That’s right, nobody.

The reason for these follies is simple – human pride and vanity, which stand for the views and beliefs of people who are stuck in their own “rightness”. These “always right” people love to argue (as an extreme option – polish the face of his opponent). Because of this they enjoy, maybe more than sex. It’s so cool: feel so cool, smart, committed self-righteous, “a hero.” And yet, behind this lies the heroism banal pride and vanity. And, as a rule, each such steep hero is a hero even more abruptly, which may be more knowledgeable, better informed in the subject of the dispute, and if the first character comes opa. He understands that it will put in place, it is logical to prove him wrong, then hurt his vanity, pride, ego. And plead such a cool kid, something wrong is something very unpleasant, and we have to back up. (In psychology this is called defense mechanisms). Then people start to shy away from talking (dispute) in any manner and under any pretext. (No time to go home to feed the gerbils and so on. D.). Or simply change the subject.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, so love to pester passers-by people with their notations that encounter these Christian believers who know the Bible better than they are always the first to run to save their “only true beliefs” through the banal escape. (Although there are exceptions)

But in the Middle Ages in all matters of dispute it was much easier than in our civilized time was right the one with a long sword. (What, the sword has always been an important argument in the debate). Or the right of the one who has the most bullets. (this is the development of progress)
Knights

But we are civilized people who do not live in the middle Ages, and in computer time. Disputes are currently not on the lists or knightly duels, and numerous computer forums and blogs (even on our website).

However, in most cases, completely sterile debate, because people stay at their “only true thoughts” And argue not for the search for truth and for the sake of vanity, to show off their knowledge, erudition, slope …

As for the phrase of Socrates, which begins with an article (that the dispute is true) then it is of course true, but under the condition that people are really looking for the truth (as the practice shows people like oh how much). Probably a correct constructive debate can be called a debate, opponents of it are not tied to your thoughts and beliefs (for them is not worth the vanity), and are not afraid to be wrong, something wrong. (Err is also quite normal and natural, because we are all humans are imperfect, and most human wisdom to be able to admit imperfection and mistakes).
That’s when the dispute is of great benefit to all, and there may indeed true.