On arguing

An argument must have three basic things within an agenda to be legitimate in a discussion. You must be internally consistent, have verifiable sources, and must be externally consistent. Without these, the argument is null and void and generally embarrassing.

So, take the statement, “Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt because they would be bad parents, as evidenced by X statistics, therefore I oppose a proposition allowing them to do so.”

It is internally consistent (They would be dangerous to children, therefore unsupported.) and has sources (cited statistics). If they were to support each other, the argument is then externally consistent and worth discussing. If not, you fail.

Remember, kids, that personal feelings are arbitrary and subjective, and are therefore fallacious to use in logical debate.

This is just me warming up for this political essay I’m working on, detailing a few major classifications of personality within the political spectrum. I’ve narrowed it down to 4 types, possibly with two or three subtypal personas within each one.

Talker
Listener
Discusser
Avoider

I have a vague rough draft but I’ll get more work done on it soon. Patience dear devoted fans. I’ll be back.

Advertisements

One Response to On arguing

  1. gizzardgulpe says:

    Also, new entry in “Dumb Things” called “Stop It.”

    And seriously, folks, just stop it. ^_^

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: