We're lawyers. We present the arguments, and the court sorts out the merits.
You have only 30 seconds to speak. Moreover, even if you had time to make your argument, the audience you need to reach … wouldn't understand it.
I passionately believe that's it's not just what you say that counts, it's also how you say it - that the success of your argument critically depends on your manner of presenting it.
To be considered presidential timber, there has to be a measure in the way you present your argument.
'Unjustly Maligned' is a neat idea for a podcast. Antony Johnston invites a believer to make the case for a cultural artefact that consensus tends to deride.
Well, I have a message for the nameless , gutless whimperers out there. Quit whining. Unlike some other shows, we here at CROSSFIRE actually present both sides of the issue. ... Look, if you want namby-pamby one-sided arguments go to Fox.
I want to write about serious things, but I want to write about them in a way that makes them accessible to a large number of people - to take them through the argument by dramatizing the circumstances in which these issues are being discussed.
Put the argument into a concrete shape, into an image, some hard phrase, round and solid as a ball, which they can see and handle and carry home with them, and the cause is half won.
Good editorial writing has less to do with winning an argument, since the other side is mostly not listening, than with telling the guys on your side how they ought to sound when they’re arguing.
