The principle above enters reality, when there is argument to be discussed for a variety of reasons. It is like adding salt to the food to guard its taste also critical in following order among words comments, translation, journalism and common work. The following is the core of its operation in some selected cases.
For example, tt is incorrect to give a negative statement without giving some interpretation. The words “No” and “Nothing” are dark words not helpful or constructive.
A sentence must be significant in its meaning correctly given and clear. Avoid ambiguity, there is fallacy in ambiguity. Grammatically wrong sentence in structure can make a sentence ambiguous or meaningless.
Using the word “All” instead of “Some” in a sentence is dangerous. The arguments will be clearly invalid. Example All Jews are good business people is incorrect answer but some Jews are correct. Incorrectness can reflect incorrect behavior.
The words “anyone”, “anything”, “whoever” when used in sentences can be translated as all in being non specific. Also “someone”, “something”, “there is”, “There are” are unclear, such words lacks skill or abilities.
What make an argument valid or invalid is the evidence of what has been claimed but absence of proof doesn’t make an argument invalid. The truth when exist it quality to the arguments. A negative conclusion doesn’t support valid argument as there is still doubt left.
Arguments that is directed against the person or a personality is poor, lacking resources it should be on what the person says. In court what you testify should be absolute, because what has been said can be damaging to the victim. Incorrect statements can put an individual into having a defective character. Arguments from ignorance are an illegitimate, it has no evidence to prove or disprove, bringing an irrelevant points establishes weakness. Clarity is the core operations of language, without clarity, no individual can deduce or interact.
Don’t go into “circular argumentation” fallacy occurs when the arguments doesn’t center on the point trying to prove.
You cannot take a statement from an authority figure and uses it as the truth. The sighting of evidence is more significant. Emotional arguments are totally false, goes beyond boundaries. It is an argument attempted to prove by having a feel or guilt about it, the Palestinian issue is one; terrorism with regard to Islam has also great emotions.
Sensitivity to the meaning of the written words have its potential to excite, stimulate or even convince the audience.
In conclusion: It is a sin if we don’t speak right, you are required to do it in order to be on the right side of God. You will be called logical, wise, trust worthy, unaggressive and a child of God.