jjkkl
Front Page Article Editor
How to Write an Argument
By jjkkl
By jjkkl
The major points that I want to express within this article are more of a short list of things that ultimately can help you out in the future. Considering that Pokegym is revolving around a game that has a lot of focus on younger children, understanding and applying these basic principles and ideas to your writing will not only strengthen your ability to formulate and provide more detail to your arguments, but also make it easier for you to build upon earlier ideas and work from there.
To outline, I will go through a few major points. Each of these sections will help you significantly in providing information as well as providing a viable overarching theme and argument to your writing. Note that this is not necessarily unique to the Pokegym, but can also be applied to almost any sort of base writing knowledge – although there are different areas such as technical writing, prosaic dialogue, and screenplays (just some examples of where writing is very, very different) – if you’re looking to better understand how to write better arguments, essays, and articles, this article should give you a basic skeleton to write.
So, without further ado, let’s begin. I will note each one from one to ten, but I will stress that there is no inherent hierarchy in their importance. The importance of each point is subjective and depends on the individual person. You can always apply the length is equal to value correlation-causation relationship (something I do not necessarily subscribe to), which means that the longer I rant about something, likely the more important it is.
Possibly the most important and vital part of constructing any written piece of work is to focus on what its subject and themes are about. The major thing is argumentation. The means of applying what you know, what you found, and what you do believe to be valid versus invalid is important, since it forms the bread and butter of your article.
To outline, I will go through a few major points. Each of these sections will help you significantly in providing information as well as providing a viable overarching theme and argument to your writing. Note that this is not necessarily unique to the Pokegym, but can also be applied to almost any sort of base writing knowledge – although there are different areas such as technical writing, prosaic dialogue, and screenplays (just some examples of where writing is very, very different) – if you’re looking to better understand how to write better arguments, essays, and articles, this article should give you a basic skeleton to write.
So, without further ado, let’s begin. I will note each one from one to ten, but I will stress that there is no inherent hierarchy in their importance. The importance of each point is subjective and depends on the individual person. You can always apply the length is equal to value correlation-causation relationship (something I do not necessarily subscribe to), which means that the longer I rant about something, likely the more important it is.
Possibly the most important and vital part of constructing any written piece of work is to focus on what its subject and themes are about. The major thing is argumentation. The means of applying what you know, what you found, and what you do believe to be valid versus invalid is important, since it forms the bread and butter of your article.
1. Note your Thesis
Ultimately, the article should be ground down into a fine point that leads to your basic, simple argument. This, depending on the context of the writing, is generally known as the Thesis.
The thesis is the single most important point that you have within your article, and all other points are subjectively stemming from it. The thesis, in a nutshell, aims to provide a single, borne argument that you will attempt to prove as valid to those reading it. The position of a thesis is meant to be an observable and workable claim with reliable proof and reasonable expectation of both success and failure. Each and every paragraph within your article should fall back to the general thesis.
Of course, a thesis may not be immediately overt. Theses (plural of thesis) can be both quite well defined as well as difficult to understand. If you plan to write a single article, what would you say to be the major argument you’re making? To most articles on the Pokegym Front Page, it would in fact be ‘this is a competitive list for Deck A, a deck I believe to be a competitive deck’. The thesis is consistent for most deck articles on Pokegym. Of course, you don’t have to do that. You could change the nature of the argument of the article itself, so your thesis could ultimately be ‘This is a list for Deck A, which I think is an interesting deck’. Changing the thesis requires that you change the outlook of your article and your expectations of your argument’s efficacy. The bolder the claim, the more significant the points you must make for it. If your points fall through or your argumentation is weak for a bold claim, then you risk dealing with a fragile argument and it becomes difficult to defend yourself.
The thesis is the single most important point that you have within your article, and all other points are subjectively stemming from it. The thesis, in a nutshell, aims to provide a single, borne argument that you will attempt to prove as valid to those reading it. The position of a thesis is meant to be an observable and workable claim with reliable proof and reasonable expectation of both success and failure. Each and every paragraph within your article should fall back to the general thesis.
Of course, a thesis may not be immediately overt. Theses (plural of thesis) can be both quite well defined as well as difficult to understand. If you plan to write a single article, what would you say to be the major argument you’re making? To most articles on the Pokegym Front Page, it would in fact be ‘this is a competitive list for Deck A, a deck I believe to be a competitive deck’. The thesis is consistent for most deck articles on Pokegym. Of course, you don’t have to do that. You could change the nature of the argument of the article itself, so your thesis could ultimately be ‘This is a list for Deck A, which I think is an interesting deck’. Changing the thesis requires that you change the outlook of your article and your expectations of your argument’s efficacy. The bolder the claim, the more significant the points you must make for it. If your points fall through or your argumentation is weak for a bold claim, then you risk dealing with a fragile argument and it becomes difficult to defend yourself.
2. Define an Abstract
The best way to understand the thesis (as writers sometimes have difficulty figuring out their own theses) is to create an abstract. The abstract is a short, rarely larger than 250 words blurb that depict the general themes and ideas that both lead and reinforce you to your current thesis. Understanding the rationale and line of logic that lead you to writing the article can helping in allowing you to formulate a better thesis. Of course, an abstract may also be very helpful in providing the general stylistic and argumentative backdrop that frames the mindset of the reader.
Why do you think this deck is a deck worth writing about? How did you come about it? What grounds legitimizes your deck in what claims you make? What faults or areas of innovation could be applied to this deck? Would you, for instance, use this deck in a competitive setting? Why or why not? You should not limit yourself to these questions, but you should definitely consider them while writing the abstract.
In summary, the abstract should lead to a logical conclusion to your thesis, and as well provide information as to why you have come to this conclusion and not another one.
Why do you think this deck is a deck worth writing about? How did you come about it? What grounds legitimizes your deck in what claims you make? What faults or areas of innovation could be applied to this deck? Would you, for instance, use this deck in a competitive setting? Why or why not? You should not limit yourself to these questions, but you should definitely consider them while writing the abstract.
In summary, the abstract should lead to a logical conclusion to your thesis, and as well provide information as to why you have come to this conclusion and not another one.
3. Be willing to summarize
Understand that your argumentation should have overarching and complete themes and subject matter to each and every part of it. Therefore, understanding that, you should be able to summarize the purpose and point of each paragraph into one of two sentences and tie them back to the thesis. Each paragraph that you write should serve a purpose to the greater article you’re writing as a whole. You can try it yourself: take an article – any article, and then try and condense it into a single sentence summarisation. Does the paragraph’s intent and summary fit in with the theme and thesis of the article as a whole? If it does not, then it has a very good chance of being a superfluous add-on.
You can see this best in newspaper articles; most newspapers articles display the basic premise of ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘why’, and ‘how’, with enough information to pepper the article so that there is an inherent wholeness from the beginning and all other information simply feeds back to the six major constitutional questions. By applying this critical summarisation of each paragraph, you can formulate a better argument.
You can see this best in newspaper articles; most newspapers articles display the basic premise of ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘why’, and ‘how’, with enough information to pepper the article so that there is an inherent wholeness from the beginning and all other information simply feeds back to the six major constitutional questions. By applying this critical summarisation of each paragraph, you can formulate a better argument.
4. Understand Skilful use of Brevity
Brevity is the use of concise wording. Brevity is having punchy and succinct prose and writing. Having a segment such as:
“This is my deck. My deck’s purpose is to do such-and-such. It is meant to counter such-and-such. Here is a list.”
is minimalist, not brevity: I must make that distinction clear. You are not forbidden from using transition words (however, in addition) to smoothen the flow of your writing. You are not forbidden from using predicate conditionals (awesome, extremely). You are not forbidden from using prose and imagery (rarely magnanimous). You are, however, required to use them skilfully and tersely within an article. You must use them with carefulness and a very, very careful degree of the understanding of your work. Is it too flowery? Is it awkward? Is it causing fragments? Can I write without it?
If you answer ‘yes’ to those questions, then you need to cut down on certain phrases, sentences, and words.
“This is my deck. My deck’s purpose is to do such-and-such. It is meant to counter such-and-such. Here is a list.”
is minimalist, not brevity: I must make that distinction clear. You are not forbidden from using transition words (however, in addition) to smoothen the flow of your writing. You are not forbidden from using predicate conditionals (awesome, extremely). You are not forbidden from using prose and imagery (rarely magnanimous). You are, however, required to use them skilfully and tersely within an article. You must use them with carefulness and a very, very careful degree of the understanding of your work. Is it too flowery? Is it awkward? Is it causing fragments? Can I write without it?
If you answer ‘yes’ to those questions, then you need to cut down on certain phrases, sentences, and words.
5. Length never has bearing to Quality
This is a very important one because regardless of the medium, people immediately presume that the length or size or the amount of visible effort put into an endeavour should immediately equal the quality of the product that emerges. That, in fact, is a poisonously archaic idea. The length of an idea or belief should only correspond in areas where there are medical, investigative or mechanical journals and articles, since the longer the work, the more likely it carries specific details that could spell the success or failure of the topic. This is not the case with a position where you are making an argument.
You should not judge an article based upon how long it is, but rather by how detailed it goes into the argument. There is a very clear and very important distinction: the length is indiscriminate of the content, whereas the detail still seeks to maintain consistency and ensures a topical nature to the discussion. The more detailed you can go into an argument and still stay on track is what many people are looking for, but oversimplification mistakenly leads to the problem of length = quality. This is never true, and never should be true.
A longer article is only effectively as how much detail is put into supporting the article’s basic premise and argument. However, remember that a longer article makes it difficult for amateur writers to stay on course, therefore inversing the effort and efficacy of the overall thesis.
You should not judge an article based upon how long it is, but rather by how detailed it goes into the argument. There is a very clear and very important distinction: the length is indiscriminate of the content, whereas the detail still seeks to maintain consistency and ensures a topical nature to the discussion. The more detailed you can go into an argument and still stay on track is what many people are looking for, but oversimplification mistakenly leads to the problem of length = quality. This is never true, and never should be true.
A longer article is only effectively as how much detail is put into supporting the article’s basic premise and argument. However, remember that a longer article makes it difficult for amateur writers to stay on course, therefore inversing the effort and efficacy of the overall thesis.
6. Do not use a Thesaurus
I must make a distinction here. When I say ‘Do not use a Thesaurus,’ I do not mean ‘throw words out that you think are cool without understanding’, but rather ‘Don’t use big words at all’. The use of ‘Do not use a Thesaurus’ is a reference to what a lot of people likely have been told growing up by English teachers – if you use ‘said’ or ‘did’ or ‘ran’ or any sort of simplified prose too much and too often, they will suggest ‘using a Thesaurus’. Do not follow that advice.
You see, words carry a distinct contextual meaning all in themselves, and because thesauruses are fact-based mechanisms, they focus on the bare bones meaning with loss of interpretation and contextual meaning at points. The use of larger words straight from a thesaurus to qualify parts of your argument through the creation of a ‘smarter’ image is a superfluous tactic: it bears little to no relevance and assistance to the main thesis and article on a whole. Ultimately, what you say and write should focus on a vocabulary that borrows partly from how you would article in real life conversation as well as what you’ve read. Trim those two parts down a bit and then you have a basic writing style. There is nothing wrong with using the same words over and over again, as sounding slightly redundant in syntax is a much less offensive remark than using a larger word inappropriately.
In summary, if someone suggests you to ‘open a thesaurus’, then don’t. Even me (and if I told you to do so in the past for whatever reason, my apologies).
You see, words carry a distinct contextual meaning all in themselves, and because thesauruses are fact-based mechanisms, they focus on the bare bones meaning with loss of interpretation and contextual meaning at points. The use of larger words straight from a thesaurus to qualify parts of your argument through the creation of a ‘smarter’ image is a superfluous tactic: it bears little to no relevance and assistance to the main thesis and article on a whole. Ultimately, what you say and write should focus on a vocabulary that borrows partly from how you would article in real life conversation as well as what you’ve read. Trim those two parts down a bit and then you have a basic writing style. There is nothing wrong with using the same words over and over again, as sounding slightly redundant in syntax is a much less offensive remark than using a larger word inappropriately.
In summary, if someone suggests you to ‘open a thesaurus’, then don’t. Even me (and if I told you to do so in the past for whatever reason, my apologies).
7. Contextualize and Understand the Restraints of your Argument
No argument is perfect. If an argument was perfect, it would be fact, and therefore there would be no need to follow my suggestions since this article is focused entirely on argumentation. One of the most poorly explained and least-focused areas are contextualizing and understanding counterarguments. These form the best areas of rebuttal, as well as provide detractors a general common ground for you and them to come to concessions. This, thereby, strengthens your own argument as not only have you shown that you considered your views, but also taken and respected the views of others as well.
This one-two punch is a difficult thing to pull off effectively if you do not have a lot of experience in addressing counterarguments or if you have a poor understanding of opposing ethos (character beliefs and mannerisms that are guided by that belief). The best way to understand the restraint of that argument is to find somebody else to look at your thoughts and see their opinions. Be very careful of sycophants – people who tend to lavish praise on others for one reason or another unnecessarily – as they do not help you when looking at arguments. Find someone who is neutral, or even negative or your idea (though be careful they are not too negative, since it could be both crushing to self-confidence or they could just be nitpicking out of emotional disconnect and not out of intent to better the article) and see their thoughts on it. Are there major flaws in your writing? Are there huge problems? What’s a big issue that they’ve found?
Addressing all those claims and problems strengthens your article – if you have a section that says ‘I know this Deck loses to this other Deck all the time, so I’ve suggested modifications and different pieces to deal with it’, then you have immediately stepped into a much more powerful position: you’ve established a contrary view, and have prepared yourself to challenge that view with yours. Not only does this mean that detractors are more willing to give some grounds out of the respect you have given them, but also allows you to frame your original ideas in a more universal light, and make the argument that much stronger.
This one-two punch is a difficult thing to pull off effectively if you do not have a lot of experience in addressing counterarguments or if you have a poor understanding of opposing ethos (character beliefs and mannerisms that are guided by that belief). The best way to understand the restraint of that argument is to find somebody else to look at your thoughts and see their opinions. Be very careful of sycophants – people who tend to lavish praise on others for one reason or another unnecessarily – as they do not help you when looking at arguments. Find someone who is neutral, or even negative or your idea (though be careful they are not too negative, since it could be both crushing to self-confidence or they could just be nitpicking out of emotional disconnect and not out of intent to better the article) and see their thoughts on it. Are there major flaws in your writing? Are there huge problems? What’s a big issue that they’ve found?
Addressing all those claims and problems strengthens your article – if you have a section that says ‘I know this Deck loses to this other Deck all the time, so I’ve suggested modifications and different pieces to deal with it’, then you have immediately stepped into a much more powerful position: you’ve established a contrary view, and have prepared yourself to challenge that view with yours. Not only does this mean that detractors are more willing to give some grounds out of the respect you have given them, but also allows you to frame your original ideas in a more universal light, and make the argument that much stronger.
8. Run your work through a spellchecker
Most browsers nowadays have built-in spellcheckers. There is very little excuse for not running your work through a spellchecker. Of course, there are times when you use words that are unsuitable, but are still actually words, or perhaps you missed a word, but an article infected with ‘Im’ and ‘youre’ should not be the norm.
9. An Appeal to Authority is NOT a Citation
Citing sources is one of the major argumentative strengths. If you can properly cite someone who is well-known to be proficient or well respected within a certain field or group that supports your argument, then you have bolstered your thesis exponentially. If you have proof of someone well-known doing very well with your deck or a similar deck, then you have a significant vantage point from detractors on some respects. Of course, this is one of the major strengths of a more popular deck: decks such as Yanmega, Reshiram, and Magnezone are immediately proven to have been successful decks whereupon much of your argumentation of their efficacy is already established.
There is, however, a difference between establishing legitimacy through the actions or claims of one another and deriving fact from someone else. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. For example, if there is a highly ranked player who says that Deck A is the best deck and you use that as proof of the deck’s efficacy, then you’ve made a logical fallacy. You’ve taken little consideration of the context of the deck’s effectiveness, the context of the player’s claim, and the overall counterarguments. You’ve created a fallacy by positioning the idea as a fact, not an argument. Because the highly ranked player has made an argument (possibly even one in the heat of the moment), you have taken it out of consideration and context and placed it as claim. That is an appeal to authority. Counterarguments become null in the face of that fallacy, since you will not listen to alternative arguments.
Likewise, the ‘what is your record?’ is a subtler version of the appeal, since it forces a quantification of a player’s successes without consideration of the variety of the metagame, the actual location, and general makeup of the decks that person has faced. For example, I play Kyogre-Groudon-Legend, and at the time of this writing, I have won 9 matches and lost 2 within various pre-rotation Battle Roads (during the Sabledonk situation). The fallacy, if I was to claim that KGL was inherently better than most would be that my performance could have carried itself in a completely different metagame or that of all types of decks that I have faced, regardless of player and time, would have met with similar results. The situation was infinitely more complex than that.
Now, back on topic, we have to compare with the appeal to authority fallacy the citation method of argumentation. Citation is very important – finding empirical evidence of support for a claim or argument can be powerful enough to base a whole article on it, as proven before (look at the many Gyarados articles done in the past). Citations are helpful things because they define the context and situation that creates the supporting crux of your argument. Compared to appeals to authority, which derives fact from opinion morphed through the words of another, citations are affirmations of claims with the willing to concede on basic points should counter arguments present themselves effectively.
There is, however, a difference between establishing legitimacy through the actions or claims of one another and deriving fact from someone else. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. For example, if there is a highly ranked player who says that Deck A is the best deck and you use that as proof of the deck’s efficacy, then you’ve made a logical fallacy. You’ve taken little consideration of the context of the deck’s effectiveness, the context of the player’s claim, and the overall counterarguments. You’ve created a fallacy by positioning the idea as a fact, not an argument. Because the highly ranked player has made an argument (possibly even one in the heat of the moment), you have taken it out of consideration and context and placed it as claim. That is an appeal to authority. Counterarguments become null in the face of that fallacy, since you will not listen to alternative arguments.
Likewise, the ‘what is your record?’ is a subtler version of the appeal, since it forces a quantification of a player’s successes without consideration of the variety of the metagame, the actual location, and general makeup of the decks that person has faced. For example, I play Kyogre-Groudon-Legend, and at the time of this writing, I have won 9 matches and lost 2 within various pre-rotation Battle Roads (during the Sabledonk situation). The fallacy, if I was to claim that KGL was inherently better than most would be that my performance could have carried itself in a completely different metagame or that of all types of decks that I have faced, regardless of player and time, would have met with similar results. The situation was infinitely more complex than that.
Now, back on topic, we have to compare with the appeal to authority fallacy the citation method of argumentation. Citation is very important – finding empirical evidence of support for a claim or argument can be powerful enough to base a whole article on it, as proven before (look at the many Gyarados articles done in the past). Citations are helpful things because they define the context and situation that creates the supporting crux of your argument. Compared to appeals to authority, which derives fact from opinion morphed through the words of another, citations are affirmations of claims with the willing to concede on basic points should counter arguments present themselves effectively.
10. Understand Professionalism
Know the difference between putting in colloquials such as ‘lol’, ‘rofl’, and ‘omg’. I am willing to indulge them in comments, but when writing articles, I understand that there is a divide between internet slang and argumentative writing. It boils down to respect – if you do not put up an air of formality when things are needed to be serious, then there is a significant problem in people taking you seriously. Of course, this is not the case in all situations – there are moments where people still take others seriously despite using colloquialism, and that’s fine. But until you, the writer, is used to that form of blend between the formal and informal, you will have significant problems, and the habit becomes difficult to shake when during moments of extreme formality (such as formal paper writing or if you’re writing a thesis proposal on a topic) that your writing becomes hurt.
I must make the distinction that it is not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ writing, as Stephen Fry puts it, but rather it is “the prospect of not caring that underlies [the use of formality].” Having colloquialism only helps when you are certain it can spice up the tone of the article or provide a breath of fresh air, but its use must be sparse and in between. Shifting between formal and informal writing can be jarring hurhur, and its use can draw attention to readers where no attention is needed.
I must make the distinction that it is not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ writing, as Stephen Fry puts it, but rather it is “the prospect of not caring that underlies [the use of formality].” Having colloquialism only helps when you are certain it can spice up the tone of the article or provide a breath of fresh air, but its use must be sparse and in between. Shifting between formal and informal writing can be jarring hurhur, and its use can draw attention to readers where no attention is needed.
In Summary
Always remember that you’re providing a service and a product. The goal of the argument is to sell that product (your thesis) to someone else, and have them satisfied. If you cannot, then you should consider why that product worked on you and not them, and then seek to modify it accordingly within respectable and reasonable logical grounds to better suit them. The thesis, ultimately, is a piece of you, as it represents your view on a particular subject, and if you yourself cannot prescribe to it, then it becomes difficult to argue in favour of it.
In the end, you are selling an opinion, interpretation, a visualization, a conglomerate of thoughts - not a fact. Always be mindful of that, since no matter what medium, as long as you must provide a thesis or a base of argumentation, you will have to be prepared to defend yourself or even possibly proselytize.
In the end, you are selling an opinion, interpretation, a visualization, a conglomerate of thoughts - not a fact. Always be mindful of that, since no matter what medium, as long as you must provide a thesis or a base of argumentation, you will have to be prepared to defend yourself or even possibly proselytize.
