HOME | DD

Description
Let's take a look at 2 different people. We have one guy named Jerry and he's had some issues with the current direction of the Sonic series, so he decides to write an argumentative essay about it. Now when writing the argument, he makes strong points about what works and doesn't work, writes it down in a respectful manner, uses very little swearing, and makes it very clear that what he's saying is just his opinion and that it's OK for other people to disagree with him. As a result he was able to make a good argument that could be taken seriously and potentially be brought to Sega's attention so they can improve on the stuff that Jerry isn't too keen on. Now we have another person named Thomas. Like Jerry, Thomas has his own issues with the Sonic series lately so he decides to write his own arguments, and also like Jerry he's able to make strong points on what he finds wrong with the series ... however that's where the similarities between the two end. Thomas writes his argument in a very rude manner, inserts as many swear words as he can, and claims that what he says are facts and anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot. Because of this his argument is greatly weakened and is less likely to be taken seriously by most people let alone Sega.
Obviously in order to make an argument work well it has to have good points, however it's the way one expresses those points that's going to make people want to listen to you. Like you know how some people say good gameplay doesn't automatically make a game good? Well the same exact thing can be said about arguments. People want to listen to the guys like Jerry who know what they're talking about, and are just kind people overall. Why would they listen to an asshole like Thomas when they only care about themselves and attacks anybody who dares to think differently then them?
Now what would happen if someone wrote they're argument like Jerry, but had very flawed points, would his kindness save the argument? ehh not really, people would be able to see that what he's saying isn't smart, but they would mostly consider the argument harmless and not completely terrible like Thomas's argument. My point is it doesn't matter how many strong points you include in your argument, they alone aren't going to carry the argument. The points must be expressed with respect or else people won't listen to you. Like you can have the strongest points possible, but if you include something about how people who like something you don't need to go drink bleach, then every single one of those good points will be for nothing. And yes I know sometimes people won't listen to the nice guy either, but if you choose to be the bad guy then people definitely won't listen to you. So what would you want more, for people to maybe take what you say into consideration, or for people to only make fun of you?

Description
Let's take a look at 2 different people. We have one guy named Jerry and he's had some issues with the current direction of the Sonic series, so he decides to write an argumentative essay about it. Now when writing the argument, he makes strong points about what works and doesn't work, writes it down in a respectful manner, uses very little swearing, and makes it very clear that what he's saying is just his opinion and that it's OK for other people to disagree with him. As a result he was able to make a good argument that could be taken seriously and potentially be brought to Sega's attention so they can improve on the stuff that Jerry isn't too keen on. Now we have another person named Thomas. Like Jerry, Thomas has his own issues with the Sonic series lately so he decides to write his own arguments, and also like Jerry he's able to make strong points on what he finds wrong with the series ... however that's where the similarities between the two end. Thomas writes his argument in a very rude manner, inserts as many swear words as he can, and claims that what he says are facts and anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot. Because of this his argument is greatly weakened and is less likely to be taken seriously by most people let alone Sega.
Obviously in order to make an argument work well it has to have good points, however it's the way one expresses those points that's going to make people want to listen to you. Like you know how some people say good gameplay doesn't automatically make a game good? Well the same exact thing can be said about arguments. People want to listen to the guys like Jerry who know what they're talking about, and are just kind people overall. Why would they listen to an asshole like Thomas when they only care about themselves and attacks anybody who dares to think differently then them?
Now what would happen if someone wrote they're argument like Jerry, but had very flawed points, would his kindness save the argument? ehh not really, people would be able to see that what he's saying isn't smart, but they would mostly consider the argument harmless and not completely terrible like Thomas's argument. My point is it doesn't matter how many strong points you include in your argument, they alone aren't going to carry the argument. The points must be expressed with respect or else people won't listen to you. Like you can have the strongest points possible, but if you include something about how people who like something you don't need to go drink bleach, then every single one of those good points will be for nothing. And yes I know sometimes people won't listen to the nice guy either, but if you choose to be the bad guy then people definitely won't listen to you. So what would you want more, for people to maybe take what you say into consideration, or for people to only make fun of you?