If you have "no place to go," come here!

Balanced arguments are more persuasive


Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on


Low educational level: nowadays this would be called 'dumbing down'. Again O'Keefe found no evidence that people with lower educational levels are more persuaded by a one-sided message.

Submitted by lambert on

I think the Quick hits are working. It's a great way to lay down a marker on a study that one really doesn't have time to analyze.

Submitted by hipparchia on

fox news rulez!

here we have a meta-study of several studies, showing what serious debators everywhere -- on blogs, on high school debate teams, in science, you name it -- have learned in the school of hard knocks: not only do you have to have facts and hard data to back up what you say is true, but you have to have facts and hard data to back up what you assert is false in your opponent's argument. every blogger and commenter worth their salt has both issued and answered the challenge: you got link/cite for that?

so what gets the headline in that blog post? balance.

Submitted by lambert on

This is the key graf IMNSHO:

There's one big proviso to this: when presenting the opposing view it's vital to raise counter-arguments. Two-sided arguments which don't refute the opposing view can be significantly less persuasive than a comparable one-sided argument

So that's not faux balance at all; and my hasty headline was deceptive.

Submitted by hipparchia on

but i still want to know if the person who wrote that headline watches fox news.