Hi, In any argument, reasoned or otherwise, there is the issue of style as well as passion and substance in pushing a view. A good vocab will help a person with the style part and make his argument sound more convincing. Politics is often considered a triumph of style over substance. So yes, can a good vocab help you win an argument - absolutely. But the question is really, do you argue to win? Or do you argue to find the truth? Cheers, Greg.
It can help, but a good arguer doesn't need an extensive one. Just enough words to be clear and precise about what they're talking about. And the latter is very true, though often you're arguing against opinion with your own rather than truth, so convincing people to your side more often than not has nothing to do with truth at all and more to do with what seems to the people around you as the more logical and reasonable train of thought or actions.
My view on the matter is that as long as you have the sufficient vocabulary to express your argument, you can argue effectively. Arguing is not a competition of terminology, nor of forcefulness. It is the subject matter that is significant. However, I guess it depends on the circumstances. If, by arguing, you seek to persuade the opponent/recipient to come round to your way of thinking, then you may want to take into account how best to achieve that aim. Perhaps they are the kind of person who DOES put value in vocabulary, and dismisses anything spoken plainly or minimalistically as a "lesser" argument. If it is a formal argument, perhaps written in a letter, then vocabulary probably plays a much greater role than if you were just having a rant in a pub. But having just a sufficient vocabulary is sufficient. You don't have to use the perfect words; after all, many times when you're arguing the perfect words go out the window almost immediately, as you become more passionate about what you are actually saying.
It helps to have a tenable position and sound logic to back it up. The best mastery of language can prettify and obfuscate a bullshit argument, but solid logic and plain language are an unbeatable combination. No verbal acrobatics will ever substitute for the application of intelligence to a problem.
One thing that often happens in debates often is one side constructing sentences around a certain topic to make it sound better than an alternative construction. For a good essay on this I urge anyone interested to read George Orwell's essay: 'Politics and the English Language'. For example: 'Civilian casualties' is a much more pleasing phrase than 'Civilian deaths'. A debate I seen between Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway on the war in Iraq had this little gem '... the only people who die in Iraq, sorry, the only death's caused in Iraq ...'. For whatever reason there is something more psychologically settling about the latter than the former, even though they mean and say exactly the same thing.
