Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 15|    either to ourselves or to our opponent; and either to questions
 2      I, 15|      telling against that of our opponent, at least we can always
 3      I, 15|       prove our own worth or our opponent’s worthlessness. Other arguments
 4      I, 15|       they tell in favour of our opponent. Now for confirming or upsetting
 5      I, 15|     tells against us and for our opponent, when we may say what is
 6      I, 15|      either by himself or by his opponent.~If you refuse to offer
 7      I, 15|     themselves; and that if your opponent does swear, you lose your
 8      I, 15|      trust yourself but not your opponent; and that (to invert the
 9      I, 15|          the gods; and that your opponent ought not to want other
10      I, 15|         words. But if it is your opponent who has already sworn an
11     II, 18|        arguing against an actual opponent or against a mere proposition;
12     II, 18|          should attack an actual opponent. Our principle holds good
13     II, 23|        and Aristogeiton than his opponent was. "At any rate, my deeds
14     II, 23|         point of view which your opponent has not adopted. This is
15     II, 23|        argument is to refute our opponent’s case by noting any contrasts
16     II, 23| connexions. (1) Referring to our opponent’s conduct, e.g. "He says
17     II, 24|        case or to overthrow your opponent’s. We do this when we paint
18     II, 25|          directly attacking your opponent’s own statement, or by putting
19     II, 25| decisions.~1. By "attacking your opponent’s own statement" I mean,
20     II, 25|          when, for instance, the opponent’s enthymeme having concluded
21     II, 25|         in showing not that your opponent’s premiss is not probable,
22     II, 26|        it will be clear that our opponent has not reasoned correctly
23    III, 13|         or a reply to a forensic opponent? or an epilogue in closely-reasoned
24    III, 13|     Epilogue. "Refutation of the Opponent" is part of the arguments:
25    III, 13|        so is "Comparison" of the opponent’s case with your own, for
26    III, 14|        subject, or the speaker’s opponent. Those concerned with the
27    III, 14|      speaker himself or with his opponent are directed to removing
28    III, 15|          Euripides said that his opponent himself was guilty in bringing
29    III, 16|    distinguish yourself and your opponent; for instance, "he went
30    III, 17|          side.~The "Reply to the Opponent" is not a separate division
31    III, 17|      Arguments to break down the opponent’s case, whether by objection
32    III, 17|      attempt some answer to your opponent’s speech, especially if
33    III, 17|          be done by getting your opponent’s speech out of the way.
34    III, 17|        you cannot say about your opponent without seeming abusive
35    III, 18|         employ this is when your opponent has so answered one question
36    III, 18|        and you can see that your opponent must say "yes" if you ask
37    III, 18|         expect to show that your opponent is contradicting either
38    III, 18|       interrogation; for if your opponent gets in an objection, you
39    III, 18|         your answer, before your opponent asks the next question or
40    III, 18|       from the Topics.~When your opponent in drawing his conclusion
41    III, 18|            Well then", asked his opponent, "did not you propose the
42    III, 19|        ill-disposed towards your opponent (2) magnify or minimize
43    III, 19|       the untruthfulness of your opponent, the natural thing is to
44    III, 19|       own case with that of your opponent; and you may compare either
45    III, 19|      comparison less direct: "My opponent said so-and-so on this point;
46    III, 19|          by me?" or "What has my opponent proved?" You may proceed
47    III, 19|          you wish, those of your opponent.~For the conclusion, the