In Plato's Republic, we readers are introduced to two characters who have opposing views on a simple but elusive question: what is justice? In this article I will explain Thrasymachus' definition of justice, as well as Socrates' rebuttals and differences of opinion. Additionally, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus and offer critical comments and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument in question. The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very selfish form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is present only for the benefit of the ruler, or the one who commands – and for that matter anyone in charge can change the meaning of justice to suit their own needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example to support his claim. He states that the man who is willing to cheat and be unfair to achieve success will be far better and better than the right man. Thrasymachus' definition of justice is inconsistent and difficult to conceptualize in the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus's ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus's definition of justice after passage 338c remains questionable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the strongest” (338c). Therefore, in itself, this statement could infer that what can benefit the stronger is right and therefore can also be beneficial to the weaker. Therefore Thrasymachus' definition can be taken in different contexts and used at one's discretion. Furthermore, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice several times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states that... in the middle of the paper... the case of the cases is because there are many right ways in today's context, where many have become better than their peers, without being unfair. If we take the example of Yahoo and Google, both search engines, Google has surpassed Yahoo by being more ambitious and offering a better service without being unfair, as far as we know. Therefore, Socrates' argument is wrong because, in today's society as well as in Socrates, there is no room for competition, so we cannot show the differences between people. One professor is definitely not better than the other, but one professor might have better ideas than the other which might get him recognized more than the other professor. Consequently, if we keep this in the context of Socrates, the professor with the ingenious ideas can never, and should never, try to outdo another professor, as that would be an unfair thing to do..