yo writing tips cause if I read one more comment or reply that is essentially name-calling imma jump through my phone and strangle someone
i am by no means a professional, but i am trained in persuasive/argumentative writing, so i thought i'd write up this little guide for anyone looking to improve their persuasive/argumentative skills. or you can just use it to win arguments idc.
also, idk if all writers are like this, but if you're arguing with me and you don't follow these points, i will most likely not take you seriously. not to be mean or sound like a snob, but i've been doing p/a writing for about seven years now. i've seen and done it all, and i have earned my right to be picky about what arguments i accept. follow these rules if you don't want me to laugh at your shitty arguments.
my guide to persuasive/argumentative writing
keep in mind, this isn't just for long pieces that you worked hard on. all writing that is meant to persuade should contain most if not all of these elements.
level of importance in order of least to greatest is green, yellow, red.
normally I'd start with grammar and mechanics as that's typically the most important part in making sure your writing is taken seriously, but as this is social media, i think it's ok to ignore that one. I myself am anti capital(ist) :) i will say this: a lot of writers develop pet peeves within grammar and mechanics that they just can't ignore, so be mindful of your oppositions/audiences' feelings there. my personal pet peeve is misused commas.
first, we must distinguish persuasive/argumentative writing vs hate writing. p/a is meant to expose readers to the writer's point of view and convince them that it's good. hate is just rude and meant to piss people off. honestly, I have no respect for it. if you can't even tell me why you believe what you do, then maybe there's a reason people are disagreeing with you. always make sure you're using p/a and not hate.
make sure you have a strong opening. shorter pieces don't need hooks per say, but you still want to give readers a reason to stay.
develop your topic. whether this is establishing a thesis with supporting points or just throwing out solid one liners that can't really be argued with, your topic needs strong support.
avoid rhetorical questions. as an opening or closing statement, these are fine, but once you get into the meat of your argument, you need to answer more questions than you pose. if you feel like you need a rhetorical question, maybe ask yourself why you feel you need it there and if you can answer it with the knowledge you have. if you can figure that out, write the answer. if you can't, nix it. i know in your writing classes in school, they told you rhetorical questions make the reader think, but at this point in the argument, the writer should be doing the thinking, not the reader. there is no reason you should be asking your audience to answer questions on your own topic.
no name calling. this is the basest form of arguments. they make you sound stupid, and they are always false. there is no supporting evidence in name calling. the act itself is a logical fallacy (see logical fallacies below). rest assured if there is any name calling at all in your argument, i am laughing at you.
find and cite sources. (if this wasn't social media, this would be red) if all else fails, your writing will look ten times better if it is backed by professionals. if all you rely on is your own knowledge and opinions, that can be an opportunity for your opponent to topple your argument. alternatively, anecdotes can be considered sources in some cases, but be careful with anecdotes as there is no way to prove them.
sources must be credible. no websites with no authors last updated in the 90s. authors should have relevant credentials or proven years of experience, their credentials must be relevant, source must be current (typically go for last five years, but can be expanded/shortened depending on the topic), and source must be objective.
when possible, call on original content. that's firsthand evidence of things that actually happened in the book/movie/game etc.
do not rely on things the original author said. this is fandom; the author has no control on fandom.
be respectful. you may think disrespect helps you win an argument by attacking your opponent's character, but it actually does the opposite. it makes it seem like you can't come up with a solid argument, so you're resorting to pettiness and dumbassery. beyond that, no social media argument is worth bullying. and remember, disrespect includes name calling, condescension, insults, etc.
use as much figurative and descriptive language as you want. the adverb rule has no bearing on argumentative writing. whatever gets your point across in the most entertaining way is encouraged.
don't just be inflammatory. not everyone agrees with you; that's the point of the argument. take the time to explain your position in a respectful manner that isn't just meant to piss off your opponent.
try to match your opponent's level. if you find yourself going above and beyond and sounding, i don't really wanna say smarter, but more technical ig, it comes off as condescending and pretentious. on the other hand, if you underuse the technical stuff, it makes you sound like you don't know about your topic. find a nice middle ground that matches your opponent. and remember, the object of p/a is not to inform or insult, it's to convince people that your point of view has merit.
address the other side. this is called a rebuttal. if you are introducing the topic, that is, you are the op, you must have a rebuttal. acknowledge the opposing viewpoints and explain why you don't like them. this can go anywhere in the piece of writing, but it's usually toward the end or at the very beginning. if you are adding comments or replies, you will probably be opening with the rebuttal.
address your own side. this may seem obvious, but you'd be surprised how many people think just attacking the opposition is good enough. don't just shit on the opposing side. your entire argument should not be a rebuttal. explain why you don't like the other side, yes, but you must also explain why your side is better.
NO LOGICAL FALLACIES (list below) you'll notice all the fallacies are in red; that's because logical fallacies will destroy an argument faster than a nuclear bomb.
(i should preface this by saying this is not meant to convince people to be pro sex work legalization. just for some reason, that is what popped into my head while i wrote this. none of this has been researched.)
ad hominem: an attack on character rather than an opponent's argument. these can be obvious or subtle, and often include name calling. an obvious example is:
person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons].
person 2: yeah, well, you’re ugly, and you smell bad, you dumb fuck.
person 1 may be ugly and smelly, but that has no bearing on their argument, and the name calling, while funny (to me in this context), is an automatic flag. another example is:
person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons].
person 2: your blog is filled with nothing but gruesome images of animal abuse. stfu.
person 2’s argument may be true and does expose person 1 as immoral, but it has nothing to do with sex work legalization, in which case person 1 should be blocked (and probably reported), but first listen to their argument. it could still be good. a more subtle example is:
person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons].
person 2: you run an arts and crafts blog. why should i listen to your opinion on prostitution?
it may not seem like person 1 has any reason to care or know about sex work legalization, but they can still form a good argument, especially if they have good sources or personal experience. always at least try to hear someone’s argument before you cast it off as bad.
hasty generalization: a claim based on little to no evidence. an example is claiming all prostitutes are somehow criminals outside of prostitution charges (ex. drug abuse, theft, trespassing, pedophilia, etc.), so sex work should remain illegal because the writer knows of a couple sex workers that were also shoplifters. this kind of thing drives stereotypes and prejudice, and it also makes the writer seem rude and arrogant as well as brands them as someone who jumps to conclusions, completely upending their argument.
false cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) - event 1 happened just before event 2, so event 1 caused event 2. unless the writer provides evidence of event 1 causing event 2, there is no reason to spread the belief that event 1 caused event 2. an example is someone saying that a recent legalization of prostitution in some area caused a random uptick in car accidents without providing any citations or evidence. there may be a connection, or there may not be a connection, but until we have more information, we must assume there is no relation.
either/or: there are only two sides, and the only options are the extremes. basically, the writer offers an ultimatum that typically contains other logical fallacies. an example is someone saying we can either keep prostitution illegal which would minimize crime, decrease stds, and keep people from having sex outside marriage, or we could legalize all forms of prostitution which would make everyone want to be a prostitute, increasing stds, pregnancy out of wedlock, crime, rape, and immorality. beyond this argument containing multiple fallacies i have already discussed, it assumes there are only two options: absolute illegality or absolute legality. this is not how the law works, and it is not how most things work. the majority of topics have levels; the part that should be debated is which level works best.
strawman: writer misrepresents opposing viewpoint on purpose and uses this skewed perspective to attack opposing viewpoint as a whole. an example is anti-prostitution legalization people saying pro-prostitution legalization people want everyone to become a prostitute. the antis took the pros argument and twisted it to better fit their argument which is that all prostitutes and those in support of them are evil.
red herring: distraction. irrelevant info is presented alongside the often bad relevant info to distract from a poor argument. an example is someone trying to establish that prostitution legalization would be bad for the community and backs up their claim with a source about std rates. while distantly related, std rates in this context don’t actually have anything to do with prostitutes being bad for the community because the writer has not established that prostitution causes an increase in stds.
ad verecundiam: appeal to authority. often paired with the bandwagon fallacy, this is when the writer cites a public figure even if they have no relevance to the topic. an example is an anti-prostitution legalizer citing trump as an authority on prostitution. while he probably has experience on the topic (don’t cite me, this is a joke), trump is not an authority on the topic. no matter how much he wants people to blindly follow his views, he is not and never will be an authority. in fact, a leader making themself seem like an authority on everything to the point that their followers want to cite them for everything is a quality of a dictatorship.
bandwagon: everybody’s doing it, so it must be correct. popular in advertising, an example is if a bunch of people suddenly started shaming prostitution (more than normal i mean), so the writer says that many people can’t be wrong, so more people should do it. this fallacy also involves stuff like peer pressure, citing celebrities as authorities, dubious social movements, etc.
circular argument: using a previously unevidenced point to prove another point. an example is if someone said something like, “prostitution shouldn’t be legalized because prostitution is illegal.” this is true, but it also doesn’t prove anything.
slippery slope: performing an action will lead to a chain reaction. an example is saying legalizing sex work will lead to more sex which will lead to increased pregnancies which will lead to increased abortions which will lead to increased illegal abortions which will lead to…etc. if the right measures are taken, none of this will happen, yet people still employ this fallacy because it’s easy to ignore the obvious solutions to the chain reaction in favor of a faulty topic.
appeal to pity: basically using a sob story to garner support. an example is someone attacking a sex worker and using the defense that their parents got divorced because their father hired prostitutes and it destroyed their marriage which in turn destroyed the attacker's childhood. alternately, if the case goes to court, the attacker may fake needing a cane or other medical equipment to sway the audience with sympathy.
appeal to ignorance: the argument hasn’t been proven wrong, so it must be right and vice versa. an example is someone accusing their husband of being a pimp because there’s no evidence to contradict them. alternatively, someone could say there’s no way their husband is a pimp because there’s no evidence to contradict them.
end of logical fallacies.
use logos, pathos, and ethos. logos: logic. basic argument. using solid evidence to back up a claim. pathos: emotion. evoke strong emotion, negative or positive, in the reader to draw them to your side. ethos: character. make yourself an example of competence, credibility, and knowledge on your topic.
and that's all i have atm.
