# Discussion thread. . . Arguementation



## HLGStrider (Feb 26, 2003)

When you write an arguementaions paper how do you do it?

Do you tend to state your beliefs clearly but softly?
Do you tend to state your beliefs virulently?
Do you tend not to state your belief and just let the facts speak for themselves?
Do you like to wait until the end of the paper to state your beliefs so they are the conclusion?
Or something else?

I tend to state my beliefs clearly but I consider myself soft in my delivery.

All of the above have their advantages. What do you think?


----------



## Eriol (Feb 27, 2003)

Er... I am no writer, but I have some experience with real life debates. It all hinges on three variables: the audience, your skill at delivering your point, and whether you are right. In an honest argument (both parties are looking for the truth -- no one is trying to "save face", or influence others), I believe stating your views strongly at the beginning is best. Otherwise people can get confused as to what exactly you are arguing for. It is a kind of "journalistic technique", use a concise (is this possible??) headline summarizing your position. Of course the other party should do the same.

This pressuposes an ideal debate -- honest opposition, honest (disinterested) audience. If one of the above conditions do not hold, then all kinds of "stunts" may be attempted to win over the audience and/or discredit the opposition (dirty, but if they are hostile and dishonest they will try to do the same. Ideally you must discredit them by not attempting to discredit them as they attack you... it can get complicated  ).

And of course the worse position is when you are not right. The best thing to do would be to admit it  , since you are "honest opposition" (at least ideally). But in real life this can be difficult, and sometimes you have to defend something in which you do not believe. Then you are really at the mercy of the opposition -- if they are skillful and know what they are doing, you will "lose" the argument. But then again "winning" such an argument is not much of a victory... Your hope is in their lack of skill, or perhaps in the audience.

I don't know how much of this is useful for writing an argumentation paper... I hope it helped.


----------



## childoferu (Jul 27, 2009)

Eriol said:


> Er... I am no writer, but I have some experience with real life debates. It all hinges on three variables: the audience, your skill at delivering your point, and whether you are right. In an honest argument (both parties are looking for the truth -- no one is trying to "save face", or influence others), I believe stating your views strongly at the beginning is best. Otherwise people can get confused as to what exactly you are arguing for. It is a kind of "journalistic technique", use a concise (is this possible??) headline summarizing your position. Of course the other party should do the same.
> 
> This pressuposes an ideal debate -- honest opposition, honest (disinterested) audience. If one of the above conditions do not hold, then all kinds of "stunts" may be attempted to win over the audience and/or discredit the opposition (dirty, but if they are hostile and dishonest they will try to do the same. Ideally you must discredit them by not attempting to discredit them as they attack you... it can get complicated  ).
> 
> ...


 
precisely


----------

