Both are very important. Without a logical basis, there’s no argument. Without the ability to clearly communicate your ideas, there’s no argument. I would say that, in a good argument, there is more tolerance for small errors in communication than for small errors in logic. A small typo or misspelling here or there does not detract from the overall idea, whereas a small logical error early on in an argument can snowball quickly into massively-wrong conclusions.
Still, a total lack of grammar or basic understanding of one’s native tongue does not lead observers to believe they know what they’re talking about.
If there are enough errors to distract me from what the writer is trying to say, then the argument becomes secondary to me. An occasional typo or grammatical flub is not that big a deal in an informal venue. In a scholarly work or a periodical, it will make me wonder about the author’s attention to detail regarding everything presented. Perhaps an unfair assessment on my part, but it’s hard for me to ignore a sloppy presentation.
Well, I guess I can’t listen to either of you. FYI, in America, commas go on the inside, but question marks go on the outside unless you are quoting a question.
As for my argument: Spelling incorrectly or improper grammar doesn’t affect my opinion of your argument, but it is inversely correlate with how likely I am to engage with you.
and if u type liek this while callng me stupid I am going to point out that at least I can actually write a sentence. For example, when someone kept telling me I wasn’t a real fan because I disagreed with them about Star Trek, I was sure to point out that Spock is not played by Nemoy.
For the record, I’m working with a GED and a give 'em hell attitude here, so I don’t have a whole ton of sympathy for people who claim poor education. I learned to write by reading. If you don’t read enough to write coherently, you probably don’t read enough that the opinions you’re spewing are informed.
What he said. The point of communicating is to communicate - a lot of people like to say things like, “Well, you can figure out what I’m saying;” I don’t want to figure out what you’re saying - I want YOU to do some work in your writing so I don’t have to do the work to figure it out.
I couldn’t vote in this poll because neither is more important; they are equally important.
One of the brightest people I know is an Orthopedic Spine Surgeon who got his undergrad from Yale and attended Chapel Hill medical school. The man can not spell to save his life. Just because he can’t write a letter without spell check does not make what he has to say in that letter less worthy than someone who can spell “receive” and knows when to use “than vs then”. I think it is arrogant to think that a person who writes they’re, there or their in the wrong context is ignorant.
I would argue against this supposed order. The argument is formed in one’s thoughts before it becomes spoken or written.
That said, trying to assign greater importance to either the substance or form of such a thing is a futile endeavor. Both are important, each must attain a certain level to be effective, and each is subject to degrees of imperfection. Thus making a blanket judgment of one being more important than the other (to apply in all cases, presumably) is an exercise in folly. The goal is to communicate a compelling argument. If the argument is weak, or the communication ineffective, or both, the goal will not be reached.
I work with a ton of highly educated people who can’t spell. They’re ignorant of proper spelling. That said, you get a pass for not using the correct “their” when what you’re writing also contains the words “Mendellian Randomization”. Less so when it’s a poorly constructed rant about a topic you clearly aren’t especially well informed on.
Spelling is not the determinant of a coherent argument. Grammar plays a rather larger role in that it is the scaffolding that allows you to construct the argument and say what you think with less fear that you will be misinterpreted. Punctuation in the wrong places can cause your argument to break down when it introduces ambiguity. Confusing they’re with their or incorrectly rendering the odd word such as necessarily only causes genuine problems if your misspelling happens to form another word that means something radically different and is in context.
Assuming someone is wrong because of slight spelling and grammatical errors or that someone is more likely to be right when they’ve used semi-colons or the correct manner are equally boneheaded. Clarity of expression is the most important aspect. If it takes someone several re-readings to even figure out what you are trying to say then you are presenting a poor argument.
Ok, so I’ve presented that fairly formally, but we equally have to remember the context of where we are presenting the argument. My word choice on Facebook would be a touch more tabloid if I was on there (which I’m not, so the point is moot). TBH, the education jibe was a bit of a cheap shot - I know people who’ve been to university and everything who present their views equally poorly; indeed, I’ve been known to do so myself when my opinions have been a bit inchoate yet I have a gut feeling in a certain direction. Step 1 is definitely to solidify the argument in my view - there’s no point in polishing a turd with literacy. The arguments should have been countered or you should have pointed out why you couldn’t figure out what the argument actually was. It sounds like the non sequiturs were the biggest argumentative flaw. Mind you, it was on Facebook so I half wonder why you’re bothered
In my experience, the people who fail dramatically at grammar and sentence structure are also the people whose arguments lack coherence (not that they are wrong, but just that nothing they say truly relates to the conclusion they are trying to reach).