Final answer:
Being arrogant or domineering to win an argument often results in poor judgment and ineffective communication based on power dynamics rather than the merits of the argument. It's more beneficial to engage in constructive dialogue, focusing on the ideas presented rather than the personalities involved.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks whether being arrogant or domineering has any value in the context of winning an argument. In essence, relying on aggression or overconfidence to win an argument can actually be counterproductive. It's important to recognize that intelligence is not the only advantage in a debate; however, approaches such as tooth and claw tactics or overpowering others can be flawed strategies. This is akin to nature's diverse methods for survival, where not only the strongest but also the most adaptable succeed.
Arguments based on authority or power dynamics can lead to sloppy associative reasoning, where a person's characteristics are incorrectly attributed to the validity of their argument. Furthermore, allowing emotions to overrule logic can lead to poor judgment of the arguments presented. For instance, disliking a person may skew our perception of their valid points. It's crucial to evaluate arguments based on their merits rather than the perceived power dynamics or emotional responses they evoke.
Historically, the Sophists taught how to succeed in arguments regardless of the argument's strength. While these strategies might provide short-term advantages, they do not contribute to a genuine understanding or the resolution of issues. Embracing humility and aiming for a constructive dialogue—wherein the focus is on the exchange of ideas rather than the personalities involved—leads to more meaningful and effective communication.