A.C.Grayling

Aristotle does, indeed, distinguish between (i) logic as the theory or method of arriving at true conclusions; and (ii) dialectic as the method of arriving at conclusions that are accepted —conclusions in regard to which it is not taken for granted that they are false and also not taken for granted that they are true in themselves. What is this but the art of being in the right, whether one has any reason for being so or not, in other words, the art of attaining the appearance of truth, regardless of its substance?
Aristotle divides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (iii) eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises (the materials from which it is drawn) are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (iv) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct.

But the real world is anything but ideal, and in it people strive not to reach truth, but to win arguments

So insistent is the human desire to win that almost as soon as the philosophers of classical Greece began to undertake serious enquiry into the nature of things, so also began the art of rhetoric, which is the technique of winning arguments independently of truth or merit