Why Ugly Arguments Don't Work
An ugly argument doesn't persuade anybody. (Except maybe the person making it.) Some of its features are: disorganization; rambling; sloppiness; errors; poor word choice; mediocre writing; no focus; exaggeration; harshness. Thoughtful deciders eventually turn that channel off. It's too hard on the eyes and ears.

Persuasive advocacy on the other hand has an aesthetic: purposeful; compositionally unified; sharpened to the point; balanced; craftsmanship. Advocacy tuned into those qualities has a better chance of acceptance by people. And the most beautiful argument uses those tools so well that it doesn't reveal them. The tools are hidden, like a musical composition that's in harmony without having to explain the science of harmonics or a painting that uses color harmony without a dissertation on how to mix primary, secondary and complementary colors.

It's for the same reasons people of all times, ages and cultures like good music, great visual art, a well-prepared meal, a well-designed building or landscape. It goes way beyond law. If the argument tastes bitter, is full of weeds, hits the wrong notes and keys, sounds over-the-top,  lacks a sound foundation, is broken or worn out... people who are thoughtful deciders won't buy it.

For more on this topic, here's a link to my article this month published by the American Health Lawyers Association.

Search this Blog

Media Contact

Recent Posts

Jump to Page

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.