I like a hammer-and-tongs discussion. Indeed I’d go so far as to say a good argument is an enjoyable pastime. As long as civility is maintained, lively debate can be healthy and informative. I also think that taking part in an argument reveals a lot about a person’s language skills.
If you wish to debate split infinitives, I’m available (there is no grammatical reason not to split an infinitive). And I am a firm believer in the necessity of the Oxford comma.
But there are limitations to the type of discussion I enjoy.
This week. I became embroiled in conversation with a chap who had what I thought were quite extreme views on Covid-19, vaccinations, and mask wearing in public.
Now one of the parameters I set myself when agreeing to write this column was to refrain from espousing political, religious, or lifestyle views. I think a newspaper article that deals with language better serves its purpose if it takes a step back and examines how opinions are verbalised, how vocabularies are employed, and what sort of language is used when putting forth a point of view. So I won’t reveal which side of this Covid discussion I took.
When arguing, however, I find it frustrating to debate with those who start from an inflexible ideological standpoint. They often do not, and do not wish to, engage in proper discussion. They aren’t open-minded, they have already decided upon their truth. They just want to beat you about the head with it. I’m sure you will have met such people.
I believe that an effective argument must be backed by sound reasoning. As Burns wrote, facts are chiels that winna ding. Sound arguments, like houses, are based on solid foundations.
To claim “secret” knowledge isn’t an argument at all. Indeed, citing ownership of “can’t-divulge-my-sources” information carries the same weight as asserting there is an invisible frog hovering between the debaters.
By all means believe what you like, it is a hard-won human right. But if you want people to agree with you then verifiable logic must be employed. If you can’t back your view with solid facts then you weaken, you do not strengthen, your argument.
Above all, to properly be involved in a discussion you have to also listen.
Ignoring counterpoints isn’t the same as defeating them. You have to be able to mount a cogent defence when valid points are brought against your beliefs.
Or else people might think you a fool.
Word of the week
Fissile (adjective)
Prone to being split along natural planes of cleavage. EG: “The fissile nature of a fool’s relationship with credibility.”
Read the latest Oh my word! every Saturday in The Courier. Contact me at sfinan@dctmedia.co.uk
