Pitching your opinion - the case for succinctness

[Serial_Apologist]

This thread stems from one of those pop-up articles on my computer this morning; it is particulary relevant to those, such as myself, who feel that in order to present a case in any debate it is better to be as fully briefed as possible to cover all angles. This item proposes the opposite, arguing that how ones views are received play a larger part than comprehensivenes, thus determining that one's opinions more likely to be taken seriously if restricted in scope.

If true, this could account for the feeling of neglect some of us must experience when, having delivered the all-encapsulating speech of a lifetime, we find ourselves ignored in favour of what we might consider some trite line-liner. Is this an oversight on the part of the pitch, or of its recipients?

http://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-to-make-your-arguments-stronger-hint-longer-is-not-the-answer?utm_sources=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Apologies for the missing S in the thread title - thank you very much, hosts, for the prompt correction!

[eighthobstruction]

....afraid it may take some time for me to reply - to decide what to reply - to reply with clarity and verve - or to reply without mentioning succinctness - IS THIS A TRAP? - or to reply with a smart cast one liner....

[french frank]

I'm interested enough to listen to the TED talk about this when I've a minute, S_A. It seems to make sense of real situations. GPA?

the feeling of neglect some of us must experience when, having delivered the all-encapsulating speech of a lifetime, we find ourselves ignored in favour of what we might consider some trite line-liner

One-liner? Yes Not just trite but forceful (and intellectually 'incomplete' )

[Flay]

This was the sin of the "Remain" campaign. There were plenty of good arguments proffered, but most far too long for the average person to read. Meanwhile the "Leavers" spoke in few-worded slogans

[french frank]

This was the sin of the "Remain" campaign. There were plenty of good arguments proffered, but most far too long for the average person to read. Meanwhile the "Leavers" spoke in few-worded slogans

Possibly not unconnected with the fact that Remainers, on average, had higher educational qualifications

[Serial_Apologist]

The example in the thread seems more to reflect on difficulties in disentangling what some may consider germane to a debate and what is not, than the quantity of information imparted. Ways in which people turn away from certain arguments or factors includable for discussion can sometimes be manifestations of denial. How the terms of particular debates are informed, who establishes the terms and to what ends, and why such terms may go unremarked or questioned, are constants in how I approach any problem or consideration worth discussing. This is undoubtedly why my idea of what is on- or off-topic is frequently more permissive than specific terms of debate!

[Serial_Apologist]

....afraid it may take some time for me to reply - to decide what to reply - to reply with clarity and verve - or to reply without mentioning succinctness - IS THIS A TRAP? - or to reply with a smart cast one liner....

I wonder if you know this story?

In a temple in the northern part of Japan two brother monks were dwelling. The younger one had but one eye.
A wandering monk came and asked for lodging, properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teaching. The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place.
So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down.
Shortly afterwards the traveller rose and went in to the elder brother and said: 'Your younger brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me'.
'Relate the dialogue to me', said the elder one.
'Well', explained the traveller, 'first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers, representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers, living the harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three came from one realisation. Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here'. With this, the traveller left.
'Where is that fellow?' asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother.
'I understand you won the debate'.
'Won nothing. I'm going to beat him up'.
'Tell me the subject of the debate', asked the elder one.
'Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers, congratulating him that he has two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we have only three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended it!'