User talk:Defiant Elements/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

::I'm not sure what to tell you really.  I 'spose I can try to offer you some general advice, though I'm honestly not sure how applicable any of this is to you having only read a mere handful of your posts.  First off, do your utmost to disallow yourself from becoming emotionally invested from the argument at hand; once you stop being detached, you generally stop employing rational arguments and things have a way of getting out of hand very, very quickly.  Second off (and this is really a corollary to the first point) you might wanna learn how to (or hone your ability to) construct what you might call a "logical argument;" in my experience, the people able to "get things done" tend to be the same people who use such arguments.  It seems self-evident, I know, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people are utterly incapable of crafting sound arguments.  The key to any logical argument (aside from avoiding logical fallacies, of course -- ad hominems, appeals to emotion, and red herrings are particularly common, in my experience; see the link on my user page under "References" if you don't know what those are) is to be methodical.  Begin by outlining your premise(s), follow those up with inferences, being sure to demonstrate exactly the manner by which those inferences follow from your premises, and, finally, draw a conclusion.  People can deny your premise, or dispute the validity of your inferences, but it's very difficult to assail a conclusion drawn from such an argument as long as you make it clear how each individual point follows from the last.  When you're addressing a counter-argument, dissect the argument point-by-point, demonstrating why each individual claim is invalid/illogical.  This is the kind of thing that really only comes with experience, but the ability to create a valid argument is damn near priceless.  Third off, try to refrain from employing the same argument time and time again/re-visiting points when it's clear that the argument has run its course/that you've reached an impasse that you're unlikely to resolve.  Of course, it doesn't hurt to be well-written, either, but these are really the only things I can think to tell you.       

::As to CHawk, I'm afraid I can't really help you.  Fact is that I agree with CHawk that a) when it comes to serious, competitive play, "cheap" is, at best, irrelevant, and b) that the sentence that you described on his talk page doesn't belong on the page for the glitch, even if I agree with you, in the abstract sense, at least, that the glitch is unfair.  Frankly, I think you're unlikely to gain much if any ground in that argument, not only because I think he's right, but also because I don't think that it's a point that either of you are willing to concede/you're both convinced that you're right, besides which, CHawk is, to be perfectly honest, better at this kinda thing (arguing, I mean).