fractaladvocate

I got into an argument recently, and it ended rather poorly. This made me wonder what exactly a fair argument consisted of.

Although actually, it ended up more going to what *wasn't* a fair arguing method. I suppose this isn't suprising, assuming most people already know the obviously unfair methods of arguing(i.e., hitting someone over the head with a blunt object ), and other than that most argument techniques border on fair.

Keep in my that these are all my fairly random opinions.

Conceding an argument - This is fair, and your opponent probably shouldn't rub it in. However, if this is a sub-argument, comboing into other points is perfectly valid.

Ending an argument without conceding - This is also fair, except in a case where an immediate decision is needed. However, you should do it without making an argument back. I.E., "I don't want to talk about this anymore." is fair. "That's beside the point, and ravens make horrible attorneys. Anyways, I don't want to talk about this." is *not* fair.

Also, if you began the argument, you shouldn't end it this way except for practical concerns. (Lack of food, sore throat, needing to go somewhere, ect.)

Personal attacks - These are fair, if relevant. However, if you use a large scope, you're essentially opening a new argument.

Example: Someone makes a racist comment. "That's a racist comment." is perfectly fine. "You're such a racist." is probably *not* fine, unless you wish to shift the focus of the argument. And then all usual rules that apply to starting an argument would probably apply.

That's all I can think of at the moment, though.

A small beginning to a small livejournal. Perhaps someday it will become great, and people will stare in wonder at it's awesomeness.

Probably not, though, as I tend to have a short attention span.

On a side note, a DoT character in a 2D fighting game is very neat.