Plato, Laws 638d

δοκοῦμεν ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ποιεῖν· περὶ μέθης γὰρ ἀκούσαντες τοσοῦτον μόνον, εὐθὺς οἱ μὲν ψέγειν αὐτό, οἱ δʼ ἐπαινεῖν, καὶ μάλα ἀτόπως. μάρτυσιν γὰρ καὶ ἐπαινέταις χρώμενοι ἐπαινοῦμεν ἑκάτεροι, καὶ οἱ μέν, ὅτι πολλοὺς παρεχόμεθα, ἀξιοῦμέν τι λέγειν κύριον, οἱ δέ, ὅτι τοὺς μὴ χρωμένους αὐτῷ ὁρῶμεν νικῶντας μαχομένους· ἀμφισβητεῖται δʼ αὖ καὶ τοῦτο ἡμῖν. εἰ μὲν δὴ καὶ περὶ ἑκάστων

This, as it seems to me, is exactly what we are now doing in our discourse. At the first mention of the mere name of drunkenness, straightway we fall, some of us to blaming it, others to praising it; which is most absurd. Each party relies on the aid of witnesses, and while the one party claims that its statement is convincing on the ground of the large number of witnesses produced, the other does so on the ground that those who abstain from wine are seen to be victorious in battle; and then this point also gives rise to a dispute. Now it would not be at all to my taste to go through all the rest of the legal arrangements in this fashion;