Arguing effectively?

[TimeWarfare1]

Here is an interesting question I'd like to ask. Does having an extensive vocabulary help when it comes to arguing effectively? Or is that two separate area's that don't relate?

[CyanSandwich]

Yes, it would. It makes you look smarter, and knowing more words makes it easier to argue a point.

[TimeWarfare1]

At 5/26/12 05:19 AM, sandwich-eater wrote: Yes, it would. It makes you look smarter, and knowing more words makes it easier to argue a point.

Hm. But my problem is, I focus so heavily on utilizing fancy words in my sentences, that It makes it hard for me to convey my point. That's why I can never get my points across.. I just focus so much on how I construct my sentences..

[TimeWarfare1]

At 5/26/12 05:21 AM, ScaryPicnic wrote: Yes, and how you use it. You can have a wide vocabulary but you must use it effectively because just blabbering long and obscure words is not going to help your argument.

So what are the best ways to improve your ability in an argument? Like, is there any guides online that can teach you how to get your point across more effectively?? I think that would really benefit me..

[TimeWarfare1]

At 5/26/12 05:27 AM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: no thats wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfResyFrqlM

[Psychopath]

Using a more complex vocabulary to win an argument is actually considered a logical folly; you're not proving your point in said argument, you're just augmenting the argument with sophisticated sounding words.

[egg82]

At 5/26/12 05:20 AM, TimeWarfare1 wrote:

At 5/26/12 05:19 AM, sandwich-eater wrote: Yes, it would. It makes you look smarter, and knowing more words makes it easier to argue a point.

Hm. But my problem is, I focus so heavily on utilizing fancy words in my sentences, that It makes it hard for me to convey my point. That's why I can never get my points across.. I just focus so much on how I construct my sentences..

it's not the construction of the sentence, it's the words that you use.
I never capitalize my sentences. I get my point across. How?

well, here's a small list:
I use formatting. Take this post, for example. If it's easy to read, it gets the point across better.
I use punctuation (or even lack thereof). It adds dramatic effect and gets the point across effectively.
I use what I call "Tier two words" and "Tier three words" - or words that most people won't use every day.
I usually don't numericize numbers below 10. Again, this adds effect
I reference previous posts, especially my own posts. That creates a "network", if you will. Makes it terribly hard for people to pivot points or lie.
I type the way I talk, most of the time. It lets the reader know that I am, in fact, human - rather than a machine simply spitting out facts.
I use question and answer format frequently.
I try to answer unasked questions.
I try to neutralize threats that I foresee in the current post - not after they've already been asked.

And last, I always summarize my post. Again, this makes it easy to understand, and it enforces the point. Usually my posts are large.

Basically, write a post like you would write an argumentative essay. Yes, it takes longer. However, you will get your point across as effectively as possible.

[Falonefal]

Remember, you have to make sure to show that you're absolutely sure you're right, because honestly, every argument is lost by the party that just gives up, unless it's an argument of knowledge, if it's an argument about a hypothetical situation, 1 on 1, no-one is going to be right, but if you have an audience that can vote for who they think is right you can win by democratic vote. And it'll be a technical victory.

And yes having some vocabulary can allow you to throw your opponent off a little and force him to give up and/or lose track of what they themselves were saying.

[stinkychops]

The best way to argue effectively is to remain calm and be right.

If you're right and you can explain why you'll "win" the argument.

In the majority of arguments both parties leave without changing their minds.

[egg82]

At 5/26/12 05:48 AM, stinkychops wrote: The best way to argue effectively is to remain calm and be right.

I agree with the "remain calm" - however on a forum that doesn't entirely apply.
I disagree wholly with the "be right" - the reasons should be quite obvious. Where exactly did you get that from, anyway?

If you're right and you can explain why you'll "win" the argument.

if you're wrong and can convince the audience, you'll also "win" - take Hitler, for example. He was an amazing speaker, and could convince his audience that he had the right idea quite effectively.

In the majority of arguments both parties leave without changing their minds.

I agree again. Most arguments made on forums are for the benefit of the audience, not the opposing sides.

in short: We argue because we think that we're right. We may not be, but hell - we may just learn something!

[Seattle1234]

Is it still worth arguing even if you know the other person is right and you're clearly wrong about the subject matter?

[egg82]

At 5/26/12 06:04 AM, Seattle1234 wrote: Is it still worth arguing even if you know the other person is right and you're clearly wrong about the subject matter?

no, it isn't. However, arguments don't start unless both parties believe themselves correct and each theory is the opposite of the other.

You may say that "the differing points don't have to be opposites" - but they do. Take the age-old God vs. Science. Nobody argues over the fact that the world was created. They argue over how it was created - and each theory is the opposite of the other.

[Ragnarokia]

Throwing a chain of interesting words will only serve to make it seem like you know a lot of words and are using them as some sense of superiority, likely not even knowing what they mean.

Use words smartly to get on top of an argument.

[BumFodder]

Arguing is as easy as hell, I dont see why people find it hard.

[Ragnarokia]

At 5/26/12 08:58 AM, BumFodder wrote: Arguing is as easy as hell, I dont see why people find it hard.

NO U

[FUNKbrs]

you have to customize your vocabulary to the person you're talking to so they feel that you are similar to them and that you have their best interests in mind.

It's not enough to be right. You have to make people WANT to agree with you.

Wearing a tie dye shirt to protest war will not convince people.

Wearing a cowboy hat at a war protest will.

[GhostOfHalloween]

always be right

[ornery]

I think the biggest problem is that as smart as you are, and as big of words that you can use, if the other guy is a thick headed retarded (as most people are) nothing really matters.
You could win the argument with flawless logic and a perfect lexicon, but the other guy is two dumb to get what you are saying and will most likely counter with some balls retarded failure of a response or comeback. Ultimately you are arguing against a brick wall who doesn't realize that its losing.

[tox]

the best way to argue is to understand what the other person is thinking, and why they are thinking that, and how it differs from your idea or experience...
if you can figure that out, then the truth will come out naturally and you both will VERY effectively come together to correct each other and take each others side...
and you will be stronger for it

[Landpaddle]

egg82
Falonefal
ornery

These three know their shit. Read their arguments already.

[AyumiStocking]

Yeah, it can put people off of arguing with you as it makes you appear to be more smarter than they are.
It doesn't always work though.

[Light]

At 5/26/12 05:09 AM, TimeWarfare1 wrote: Does having an extensive vocabulary help when it comes to arguing effectively?

Somewhat.

Don't rely on it to make your argument, though. It's all about substance. Vocabulary is just style. Sounding sophisticated never wins an argument alone.

[homor]

As long as you don't have an especially poor vocabulary, you should be fine. Just try to avoid unnecessary swearing.

Also, don't try to shoehorn in as many "fancy" or obscure words as possible, because then it looks like you're compensating for a poor argument with big words. It never looks smart, it just looks like you own a thesaurus.

[PuRpLe-KusH]

Depends on what type of argument and who is involved, and who is listening. You don't want to use words that listeners might not recognize and therefore deduct from the argument and point trying to be made.

On the other hand, using complex sentence structures and vocab can confuse the arguee and possibly make them feel stumped and at a lost for words, thus given the feeling that one has "won" or succeeded in the argument at hand

[BumFodder]

At 5/26/12 08:58 AM, Ragnarokia wrote:

At 5/26/12 08:58 AM, BumFodder wrote: Arguing is as easy as hell, I dont see why people find it hard.

NO U

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

[stinkychops]

At 5/26/12 05:59 AM, egg82 wrote: if you're wrong and can convince the audience, you'll also "win" - take Hitler, for example. He was an amazing speaker, and could convince his audience that he had the right idea quite effectively.

Do we really have to discuss Hitler again? Fine. Hitler didn't really have to argue for the extermination of Jews in his speeches. Instead he argued for things which were true such as reducing poverty, restoring Germany and regaining assets. These were in fact clever things to do. Second of all there weren't many people in Germany still arguing against Hitler.

I didn't say it wasn't possible to "win" when you're wrong, its just usually not as easy.

[egg82]

At 5/26/12 08:59 PM, stinkychops wrote: Do we really have to discuss Hitler again? Fine. Hitler didn't really have to argue for the extermination of Jews in his speeches. Instead he argued for things which were true such as reducing poverty, restoring Germany and regaining assets. These were in fact clever things to do. Second of all there weren't many people in Germany still arguing against Hitler.

I didn't say it wasn't possible to "win" when you're wrong, its just usually not as easy.

again? Have we discussed Hitler before?
You're correct, to a degree. He gave the idea that everything bad that was happening was because of the gays/jews/gypsies/etc. - I guarantee that that took some convincing. Also, Hitler wasn't just born into power. He grew to power by - you guessed it - convincing everybody that he should be in power.

It is still quite easy to "win" when you're wrong. Most of the time you simply have to outlast your opposition. You may not have changed anybody's mind (which I consider losing, to a degree) - but you'll feel as if you've won the argument (which is not actually the case, but if it makes you feel better, you do what you do)

I stick by my original statement. you don't need to be right to win.

[Nor]

Yeah, it strengthens your argument.

[Zirocket-8]

At 5/26/12 05:09 AM, TimeWarfare1 wrote: Here is an interesting question I'd like to ask. Does having an extensive vocabulary help when it comes to arguing effectively? Or is that two separate area's that don't relate?

It needs to be understandable to your audience/target. If you use vocab. they don't understand, they won't understand and as a result you would fail to get your point across. If your audience/target understands your vocabulary, then you can "argue effectively".

[pirateplatypus]

If watching political news has taught me anything, it's that the most effective way to argue effectively is to yell, slander your opponent, quote sketchy statistics that you may have just pulled out of your ass and use lots o' slurs.