How NOT to win an argument

In the world of democracy, everyone are entitled to their opinions and makes a diverse voice online. There are a lot of arguments flying around on the internet and these are some of the way how they are being argued out that I don't agreed on. 

Language (spellings, grammars and vocabulary)

Often we see a politician or debate champion blurting out points that are indefensible. They will then window dress it, using esoteric terms to burnish their points as if using colorful language actually brings something to the argument that they are trying to put forth. Worst of all, they will actually use it as a tool to attack and disparages the opposing party. Often we see this in late shows where they attack Trump or Bush for their deficiency of the command of languages. I do not have any actual raw data but the majority of people in the world do not have the proficiency of language command. And the majority of the public will resonates and relates with Trump when they are being attacked for it.  The point is, language, is actually a form of communication, a tool to bring forth ideas clearly. If it actually clouds the argument, or worst used as a tool to win the argument by distraction, I do not see the point that is trying to be made. 

Past that haunts you (hypocrisy)

This is one of the favorites, finding what they said in the past. Trump saying that flag burners should be stripped of their citizenship or go to jail but in the past he actually empathized with flag burner (on letterman). Don't get me wrong, a good argument should be consistent in its points. But when its position has being changed, we should be examining the quality of the point trying to be made and also be curious in why it is so. For example, a dictator/fascist/supremacist that used to massacre thousands of dissidents suddenly supports human rights and international criminal courts of justice, why do we want to harp solely on his past records but rather we can move forward with his support to reform and ratify/adopt such rule of law that make sure of future accountability. What I am saying is that I am not trying to whitewash the past crime or position but why am I trying to disagree with someone that finally agrees with me and actually get things done. 

Hereditary

You have no right to talk about religion if you are not part of the faith because you do not understand it. You are not the particular race as such you only have superficial understanding and no right to comment about it. These are all the points that has being brought forth in an argument. Being in such situation actually traps a person in their world view. Unless your objective is self pity or self loathing, you should open your world up for critics.

Ageism  

All of use will at one time will roll our eyes when we hear our parents of seniors telling us that we are having it easy.  "I know it better as I've lived a long time". The truth is conditions are changing all the time, in the olden days life is tough but simple, less competitive. What applies in the past, does not always guarantees the future. 

Credentials, past accomplishments and authoritative figure in the field

Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Often times we hear some expert in their field are so entrenched in their dogmatic views that they refuses to entertain any outlandish ideas and dismissed it as superficial. I myself have personally experience this fallacy where I dismissed simple notion from a junior where to find out that it is so. However ignorant, we should be giving a benefit of a doubt and actually thoroughly examine any points given even if is from a toddler. 

In summary, what I hope, is that we need to have a better argument without being condescending, degrading, disparaging, name calling etc. but rather have a courage, capacity and patients to be emphatic and open mind to think in other person's shoe, asking questions why do they feel so and arriving at such conclusions first. Opening up to all forms of thought and idea will made us arrive at a middle point and ultimately changes both perspectives.

Part two: The origins of an argument (John Rawls, Veil of ignorance) coming up soon