This opening argument has several problems. The first is that it’s what lawyers call an ipso facto argument. “My point is proved by me saying it is.” “He’s guilty because he’s guilty.” The speaker assumes you already agree. That’s not persuasive & it’s logically flawed. /1
A second problem is that it’s claiming neutral facts are nefarious. Pointing out that Trump invited & encouraged people to come to DC on Jan 6 doesn’t move the needle on whether he incited them to insurrection. He’s arguing that fact like it’s damning; it isn’t. /2
When you argue every single fact as if it’s totally damning & the worst thing ever, you loose persuasive force. All facts don’t have equal weight. Certainly they don’t all carry the most weight. An unbalanced, non-nuanced presentation doesn’t persuade. /3
Saying conclusions over and over -divorced from specific facts, arguments & analogies- isn’t persuasive either. Neither is over the top rhetoric- the biggest betrayal by a President in history. You don’t need that conclusion; it’s counter-productive for any independent thinker./4
It’s more persuasive to explain what values are being betrayed & then set forth your facts & then come back to why those facts constitute the betrayal of those values. Show, don’t tell. This argument assumes the heater already agrees -it’s reinforcing rather than convincing. /5
The manner of the presentation is just not designed to persuade, apparently because the speaker doesn’t think his audience needs persuading. I conclude from this that they know conviction is impossible & this is just a show for those who already agree with them./6
A more legal problem with the argument is the reliance on things Trump did after the riot began. That isn’t alleged in the article. At all. The theory of the article is incitement, not failure to act/defend the VP & the Capitol (which would have been a better argument.) /7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
