Chap.,  §

 1   3,    2|  attractive. Thus, the lecturers, speakers, or writers who use these
 2   4,    1|      elaboration that two or more speakers, proceeding by questions
 3   4,    1|           is either such that the speakers do not intend to change
 4   4,    1| investigation);~ ~2. Or, that the speakers differ on a certain subject
 5   4,    1|           dialogue:~ ~1. When the speakers do not aim to change each
 6   4,    1|         emotional attitude of the speakers generally has a different
 7   4,    1|      taking into account only the speakers who argue or debate. When
 8   4,    3|        beginning the process, the speakers desire to convince each
 9   4,    3|   fermentation can be observed in speakers disposed to argue. This
10   4,    3|        only be satisfied when the speakers have finally reached a completely
11   4,    3|      emotional point of view, the speakers are thus already potentially
12   4,    3|         with regard to ideas.~The speakers still admit the existence
13   4,    3|        emotional state of the two speakers.~There is a conflict, then,
14   4,    3|          in relations between the speakers. The conquest of truth through
15   4,    3|           dialogue, the irenistic speakers come to underestimate the
16   4,    3|           of cordiality. Thus the speakers conduct dialogue to produce
17   4,    3|    relations between the irenical speakers corresponds to a new stage
18   4,    3|        types of relations between speakers susceptible to irenistic
19   4,    3|       truth. To achieve this, the speakers both decide that there is
20   4,    3|          relationship between the speakers consequently changes.~Once
21   4,    3|      becomes impossible; when the speakers deal with the matter in
22   4,    3|  relativist transformation of the speakers' relationship now effects
23   4,    3|           final consequences, the speakers are no longer content with