What makes a "good" argument?

Answer 1

In terms of conflict and getting it resolved....a "good argument" happens when both or all parties involved can keep their cool and not become rude, mean, angry or abusive. The idea should be to keep it about facts as much as possible, and *NOT* have it become about personal attacks or past issues that have nothing to do with the current issue. In terms of technical skills, you may wish to do a Search on the Phrase "logical fallacies" just so you can find some "common errors in thinking" that people use, so you can be ready for them In terms of conflict resolution though, the big thing is to keep it Polite, Respectful and Civilized, meaning if need be you set up some *rules* for discussion ahead of time and have an impartial third party enforce them fairly if necessary.

In terms of more formal debates and discussions, you really want to focus on three things in presenting your own "argument" or proposal:

--Logic. Generally speaking, you want to avoid the "logical fallacies" mentioned above, but also....you want to make sure your position makes sense at face value. Having searched up your facts and figures, and then figuring out how to best present them, *ahead of time*, can go a long way towards being convincing, but you also need to check your thought processes in terms of what you're saying and how you're organizing it so that it has more structure and internal sense than your average laundry list. This is one of the *Main* focuses of most Really Good Proposals or Arguments.

--Credibility. It helps a lot if you yourself are an authority on the subject being discussed, either by way of formal education or informal experience. If you yourself aren't an authority, you can also try to find *other* authorities on the subject who are commonly held in high regard and generally believed to know what they're talking about. For example, you yourself might not know the *first thing* about modern physics, relativity and the higher maths that go behind them. But, if you can find the right quoted information from Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, both noted experts that *almost everyone* accepts are at the top of their field, you will go a long way in your proposal based on their "borrowed" credibility. Just be sure you know how to properly cite your sources on paper and how to properly *quote* people in your presentation. You do have to do more than say "well, so-and-so says....". Coming up with dates, times, places of published information is important as well, as you *will* want to fact-check your sources and make sure you have their up-to-date and *correct* info (even Einstein was wrong on a few rare issues in physics, so you have to be careful with your quotes and context).

The main things to worry about in terms of Credibility are a) you will have to fact-check, especially to make sure you aren't selectively *quoting out of context* so that it makes your source look like he's saying one thing when *in fact* he said another in the full, complete quote, and b) you will also want to check with your audience....because for some people, *some* common authorities just *aren't* credible. You don't want to quote Darwin at a church meeting, nor do you want to quote from a Bible anywhere *else* really.

This underlines the truth behind credibility. It helps but it isn't better than facts because it is based more on *belief* than on facts you can see and hold at hand.

--Emotional appeals. Most people who *teach* public speaking classes say these things are optional, and often misused and abused. They are only half right.

People often appeal to baser emotions when they know their facts aren't right or that their sources aren't credible anymore. This much is true....the emotional appeal can and has been abused.

But. You really can't *communicate* with someone, and keep their attention, without making some type of emotional appeal, whether you do it on purpose or not. Even if you just try to stick to *pure facts* and recite things as coldly as possible, *that* is in itself an appeal--in so much as it devalues your audience as emotional beings, and/or puts them to sleep with boredom.

This is one reason why debates have rules and structure though to enforce ettiquette. *NO* argument looks good when people are yelling it through a mudslide of insults and personal attacks. *Any* argument is going to look better, by comparison, when the person presenting it remains polite, friendly, cordial, and even smiles once in a while (Hint: Much of Dick Cheney's career is said to be based on just *this* emotional appeal....that he appeals to your sense of manners and niceness in person.).

And, beyond that....some completely sound, logical arguments fall totally apart just because they *feel* wrong. Many arguments that advocate warfare, murder, and general lawlessness fall on this side of things. There is a place for appealing to both the higher, nobler feelings of others: happiness, compassion, warmth, generosity, fairness, and decency. And there is also a place, however limited, for appealing to the lower, baser feelings: sadness, fear, anger, outrage, despair, lonliness, and alienation.

Sometimes, the only way you can *reach* some people is by their feelings. Sad but true. Still, appeals to emotion are *going* to be weaker by far than appeals to both authority/credibility and to logic/facts. That is just the nature of human nature: Nobody likes to admit to being seduced, manipulated, or just plain bullied into a position that they *wouldn't* have taken otherwise, by a fair and informed choice. It feels like a cheat, because sometimes it *is* a cheat. You *really* want to give logic/facts and credibility a fair chance before you pull on the heartstrings. It makes *you* look better as a public speaker, and it makes your audience look smarter for making an *informed* decision on their own. That's a win-win. ^_^

I hope this was helpful....

Answer 2

good argument is an oxymoron. there is no such thing. the best word for 'good argument' would be 'constructive discussion'

this would be when both parties can come to an agreement or compromise where a disagreement previously was through mediation and emotional problem solving. it would take maturity and open-mindedness to achieve such a high level of mutual understanding, but it is possible, with appropriate efforts being made from everyone involved.

Answer 3

because of the fact somebody is making an attempt oh, so annoying to sound sensible, viz.: - the place did time, area and remember come from for the bing bang - the place did the potential come from to make it flow bang? - How did the finished universe in fantastic condition into some thing the dimensions of an atom? - How did residing come from non-residing? - What did the 1st one celled organism devour? - What did the 1st one celled organism reproduce with? - How did male/lady genders evolve? - How does organic decision create? - Why does evolution violate the regulation of thermodynamics? indexed below are my solutions: a million) Time and remember did no longer exist in the past the enormous bang as such. area-time did no longer exist till AFTER the expansion of the universe from a component source (this is how I comprehend the enormous Bang). 2) Ever hear of the regulation of conservation of mass-potential? It can't be created or destroyed. This, of direction, is a statistical regulation. however the potential became there, and it did no longer ought to come returned from everywhere. it is in basic terms creationists that have a difficulty with limitless regression. 3) it is called a singularity. length would not advise something while it includes singularities because of the fact singularities by using definition have not got quantity. 4) There are various theories, no longer all of which i'm truly familiar with. Scientists have already controlled to replica the worry-unfastened amino acids for all times in a laboratory from the scratch of worry-unfastened organic and organic compounds. 5) Who is time-honored with? this is in basic terms a pitiful attempt to sound sensible. it truly is, as you're saying, a smoke reveal. 6) heavily? Even i'm no longer that blind to biology. One-celled organisms reproduce by using cloning themselves. they do no longer reproduce sexually. 7) i do no longer understand. yet we've an exceedingly stable theory of why. 8) by using removing those organisms that are no longer a stable in fantastic condition for their ecosystem. they only do no longer proceed to exist to breed. 9) It would not violate thermodynamics. residing issues are open structures. They take potential from the encircling ecosystem. the 2d regulation of thermodynamics is for CLOSED structures.

Answer 4

a good argument is convencing. a good argument can take the fatcs layed before it and answer it in a concised manner.
it displayes logic and critical thinking skills. it doesnt have to be a argument one that othwers would like.

Answer 5

There are no good arguments.

Answer 6

are you hurt bad? have you ever heard of being hurt good?

i think avoiding arguments is whats good. =)

Answer 7

The Part Where I am Right !

Answer 8

All the pertinent issues got addressed and either resolved or progressing toward resolution.

Answer 9

wen u r shouting at a guy nd hes shouting back so hes not a wimp lol =] but make sure u make it up in the end but i hate it wen a guy just agrees when u r yelling at him its so annoying lol =]

Answer 10

persuasion facts and yelling really loud lol jk on the last one