Hmm.... defining 'a nut' is tricky and somewhat personal. For example if I had the dubious pleasure of talking to someone who believed trees were evil - I would think they are clearly nutty as a fruit cake - but they may have some very deeply held personal convictions backed up by experience to add weight to their opinion. 'Their entire family had been killed by a falling tree', 'Their husband had left them to go and live in a tree' and 'Their neighbour had a huge laurel tree that cut out all natural light to their own home and refused to cut it down' - all these circumstances could make the tree-hater seem reasonable but they still would not be correct (make for an interesting argument though!). Someone 'who holds fallacious ideas' - this too is tricky unless it is someone who is absolutely convinced the earth is flat - and even then all your reasoning regarding satellite pictures of the earth from space, tidal patterns 'The Sun' and everything else that makes it bloody obvious we are on a globe... could be met with counter points garnered from myriad conspiracy websites and 'flat' refusal to accept reality. That is a nutter - but they still may be able to offer excellent debate even if it is frustrating. Some arguemnts are impossible to 'win' but the exercise of testing your reasoning and wit against another is an end in itself.
This is basically what I mean. The person is wrong, they may have reasons for being wrong, but that does not change on simple fact...The are wrong. (I was being slightly facetious with this example, lol, but that is what i meant.) And there is the explanation of what I said was the second method of arguing. Except that this person has actually researched, but the idea is the same. They continue to fight a battle that is not logical or has no truth behind it, but they keep at it till others give up trying to persuade them. Anyone think its kinda interesting that we are having an argument, about arguments, on a thread about...wait for it...arguments?! XD
In my opinion, context if everything when it comes to this question. What type of vocabulary are you asking about? General words in a dictionary? Words specific to a field or area of study? If I submit a paper to my professor in my area of focus, and don't argue the theodicy tendenz of the Hagolah, I will probably fail - and yes, I would be using those specific words. However, if I'm arguing with a co-worker about how different cultures, including the Jewish culture just after the return from the exile, deal with the concept of justifying evil if there is a God, then I will uses this kind of language. For the most part, both sentences say almost the same thing, but one is completely right, and the other is completely wrong, depending on where you utilize it. More important, in my opinion, to winning an argument is not the size of your vocab. list, but knowing how to utilize the exact words necessary to get your point across in a crisp, clear, and unconfused manner. Granted, a bigger vocabulary will allow you to choose better words, but the words also have to be contextual to who you're arguing with (as others have said).
If vocabulary is a simple extension of a larger body of knowledge, maybe. But honestly, winning an argument is pretty simple. Impose your will. Whether it is the largest kid in the field during recess, the girlfriend/wife threatening to without sex, Quebec again talking separation... its about being more stubborn than your opponent. Have some sort of threat behind your position, and be loud. The truth isn't found through an argument. Unless you meant a debate...
I'd say the vocabulary has a small effect. If you can't find a way to phrase it, then of course your argument breaks down - but that's not really a common problem. You don't need to know words, such as "ostentatious," to make a statement such as "being showy is bad." I think something that really affects how well one argues is just knowledge of general topics. In an argument, you need to support the side for which you are arguing, and the more current events, historical events, etc. you know, the better you can back up your statements. The more "general" things you know, the quicker you can respond (if the argument is just casual) with a clever supporting statment or rebuttal and the more likely you are to win. In a less casual "argument" like a debate, where you are trying to convince a neutral person(s), organization is also very important in getting that neutral person(s) to understand your point.
I have to echo Lemex's sentiments.. Coming from a family full of attorneys (please, stifle your jokes) I can attest I am no stranger to the art of arguement. The most important lesson my father has ever taught me in life, and it can very much so be, and should be, applied to argueing: Credibility. You have a stance? Learn it, know it, feel it, believe in it. You support your point of view with credibility, as you support your person. When you appeal to your audience's sense of empathy, heightened by your sincerity, you win them over, and that empathy strengthens your credibility, as long as that credibility exists. Credability is the foundation for every arguement, fact and evidence the masonry through which you build upon your foundation. Without credibility, your arguement crumbles, as does your person, and your audience's empathy. Can you play Devil's Advocate? And take a stance upon which you know nothing of, hiding behind a veil of bravado and cadence? Sure. Sometimes words themselves carry the hollow impact you're striving to achieve. But, mark my words, you're pulling at loose threads, for it doesn't take a genius to see through one's fabricated passion, which, inevitably, creates a situation where you are instantly thrown to the curb, for you have cast away all your credibility, at the expense of your audience's intelligence. This is something they will not take lightly. This is something you should keep full in mind. In the name of arguement, I have to sincerely refute this advice. Imposing your will most often leads to something called, Ad Hominem. This is a practice through which one resorts to petty means in order to prove a point, whether they are shouting their opponent down, insulting their person and bringing to light their faults, instead of providing the facts and evidence on which their arguement should stand. It is the cheap way to win, taking no skill whatsoever and only proves you've lost your cool. The art of arguement is not a pissing contest, nor is it a field where people come to battle through strenth. It is a battle of wits, a battle of knowledge, and the one whose knowledge is lacking, the one whose credibility falters, is the one who falls upon the cold, hard earth. As for vocabulary strengthening your arguement, the same concept that is applied to writing, can be applied here. What leaves more of an impact? Someone who knows which tool is used where, who skillfully uses a screwdrivier to turn a screw, instead of a wrench? Or the one who uses a wrench, saw, hammer, and crowbar, when the screwdriver was the best choice? Here we are full circle, back to the idea of credibility. If the words you use are being used correctly, chosen with purpose, chosen with skill, then vocabulary serves you well. But, if you're losing your impact, because you are indeed trying to show your wordsmithing prowess, instead of conveying clear and concise meaning, through the use of words, you will surely fail, in fact, you will wither away, and die on the field. Speak about what you know with what you know, and your audience will hear you loud and clear. And, holy crap, you did so without shouting, or imposing your will. Bravo, I say, bravo. *claps*
With respect to the role a fancy vocabulary plays in powerful debate, there is a relevant saying: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Thanks for the input, Hetty. You said That's interesting. Though, I have a question: A person suffers a serious trauma. They develop a phobia as a result. And as a result of the phobia the person develops particular superstitions and these superstitions are expressed with terms such as 'evil'. Would you say the person is 'nutty as a fruitcake'?
I would. But I think your logic is a bit off. Phobias don't generally turn into "evil" through superstition. Phobias are "evil" because they scare the person in question. You're addin' a step there. So the person hates trees because they had a tree-related trauma? Makes you wonder what a tree could do to a person. Ooh, I think I have an idea for a short story now... Asking what factors? Okay. - Limited vocabulary - Inability to use said vocabulary - Unnecessary bigotry - The firm belief that the other person is a bigot - Inability to understand the other person's perspective - Use of sidestepping logic (ex: Person A says "It's absolute truth that your shirt is red", and person B replies "No, my shirt isn't red, it reflects red light.") The list really could go on. A debate can even be ruined by somebody smelling bad. Ooh, this is fun. Nice mental exercise.
I never said that the superstition would turn into evil, I merely said it would be expressed in those terms. For instance, a person may have a phobia of spiders. This developed from a trauma, and over the years, the person kind of forgets the original trauma. All he knows is that he is afraid of spiders and religiously checks under his bed every night to make sure it's spider free. He feels that the one time he doesn't check will be the one time a black widow is lurking. In my opinion, that would be superstitious thinking and therefore could conceivably result in such declarations as: 'I hate spiders. They're evil.' As for your other comment: I was merely going by hetty's example. Hetty said
Yes! We have accomplished something by our vague debate about the nature of argument! Success! lol That would be a broad generalization based on one or two bad experiences. That's were stereotypes come from. Stereotypes, while have a small basis in truth, are not true of everything and therefore cannot be used as concrete basis for an argument. I understand what you are saying. Not all people who believe something that is wrong are crazy, or nutty. But, there are those who are, who cling to their arguments without reason, blindly. Anyone who believes something blindly and unquestioningly has either never thought about it deeply, or they are in fact... A Nut.
It's not a stereotype. It's one of many possible scenarios. It demonstrates that there could be more than two possibilities, that the world is not a simple case of black and white. I was questioning your weak statement. Also, I was raising a moral question: if a person has suffered deep psychological injury and develops irrational beliefs - is it right to label them as a 'nut' or 'nutty as a fruitcake'? Or do they deserve some sympathy? lol I can see Sorry to have wasted your time with my ignorance. I wish you all the best.
First of, what do you mean wasted time with your ignorance? This has been fun lol Second, why did you wait this long to explicitly state your thesis? Third, I didn't make that statement... That was Chicagoliz Fourth, I agree with you now that you actually say what the heck your point is! But I don't think that there was ever an issue to begin with. All I wanted to do was make a dang joke about politicians! lol Fifth, You use can't use my statement (see above quote) against me without implicating yourself too. We're both guilty lol
I surely didn't mean this as a strong, or wise strategy in the classical model of a debate. I have a very clear separation in my mind between a debate and the common usage of the word argument. I always see an argument as not holding to the laws of logic, thus cannot be defeated with sound logic, and most commonly resolved with presenting a threat behind your position and making it seem real. But again, I must have been mistaken on the usage of the word argument.
Bell: According to one of many dictionaries, online and otherwise, your interpretation of the word "argument" is not generally accepted. Although you may interpret it in this manner, and the type of argument you describe is certainly one possibility of an argument, it is not the only one. From dictionary.com, see the following definition ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument ) ar·gu·ment   [ahr-gyuh-muhnt] Show IPA noun 1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument. 2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation. 3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument. 4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory. 5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse. Pheonix: I am unclear what statement you are attributing to me.
Hi Solar - as I went on in my post to say "BUT [examples of tree related trauma]" to explain why the person may have valid reasons to associate tree's with very negative experiences (somewhat tongue in cheek but it illustrated a point) however traumatic these experiences were the fact that it resulted in someone describing trees as evil would be irrational at the very least. If I decided that lego was evil because I am always stepping on the bricks and it bladdy hurts that would also be irrational - Arachnophobia on the other hand? Totally rational.,spiders are evil . [Disclaimer - yes I am defending my assignment of a 'nutty as a fruitcake' label to an imaginary person suffering imaginary trauma - what does that make me?] Right, so that is settled - now it is wine o'clock I think.
No, vocabulary has nothing to do with it. It's what the person is saying that sways most minds, not how they say it. Sure, better vocabulary will certainly impress some people and you should be as articulate and clear as possible (to a point) when debating/arguing etc, but that is not why someone wins an argument. They win the argument by knowing their audience, speakingly logically and clearly, and more often than not quite simply being right. If someone is swayed quite simply by vocabulary and not by what was actually said then they're a fool.
Oh HOW someone says something has everything to do with whether it'll sway someone. The "how" engages the emotions, and few of us can say we can think completely, absolutely clearly and logically in the heat of the moment and are not swayed by the emotions the situation generates in us. Clever words sound convincing, and possessing good vocab can help that. And you'd be amazed - there're plenty of fools out there who are indeed convinced by vocabulary alone. Just look at all the business pitches and scam websites and other mindless sites targeting desperate people. Notice they use buzz words - vocabulary! - because they conjure certain thoughts, emotions, and assumptions. Notice also some people will deliberately use big words to impress a particularly ignorant audience. I completely agree with you that if you're convinced by vocabulary (especially vocab ALONE) then you're a total and complete fool. But it certainly works with plenty of people. To be articulate and clear, often you do have to possess good vocab. For example, my mum tonight drove me nuts trying to convince me that in a degree you study 8 subjects, refusing to believe me when I informed her that she really meant "modules" I was rather confused in the beginning when she kept saying she'll go and study 8 subjects at degree level.
That entirely depends upon whom is listening, it is of course subjective. I think to win a debate or argument however, all it should come down to (atleast with someone not easily swayed by large words) is simply what is said. I know many people who couldn't do a PR pitch with fancy words and emotive language if their lives depended on it, but they're also the most clear and logical people I know and it's incredibly difficult to win an argument with them when they think they're right about something. That's due to simply being clear and well thought out in their response to things. You get alot of engineers/mechanics etc who speak like that, they've got alot of vocab if needed but they can explain any fault in a machine or whatever in very simple language, very clearly. That kind of arguing is incredibly effective. Quick, sharp responses (or atleast getting enough details in without rambling on more than needed) with logical and clear thinking almost always wins the day, in my admittedly brief experience, without the need for overly descriptive or fancy wording. Being clear and logical in your delivery of a response or question is important of course, but if you're clear and you've got enough vocab to suit the situation, any argument should be easily won. Atleast if what you're arguing can be argued with a decent enough chance of winning, anyway. Vocabulary may sway some of the masses if it's a public debate or similiar, but the key to it all is what you say. I always side with those who make the most sense but aren't one for words rather than those who make less sense but sound more intellectual. Anyone can digest half of a thesaurus, it's the argument behind the words that most people (or atleast I hope most people) are listening for.
Actually, anyone who believes something blindly and unquestioningly is a normal person. People don't really have the time or capacity to think about everything deeply (trust me, I've tried) and so everybody has assumptions they've made on life around them. Questioning a person's assumptions has an affect of insulting that person, so it's not really the uncertain concept they're defending, but their own ego.
To me, a person has a point when they make important points and have a reason and purpose behind their argument. Mostly people who only argue when they need to, and ironically most of those people are intelligent, high-vocabulary using speakers.
That's what I mean. Either they've never thought about it, which, like you said, everyone believes things that they have never thought about. But, if after thinking about it, realizing they are wrong and continuing, then there's a problem.
