Here's the thing; if I don't know a lot about a situation, both arguments will generally sound just as convincing, to me. So, as part of my (admittedly flawed) human nature, I start paying attention to other traits of the person trying to convince me. For example...Cursed Lemon wrote:If you weigh information on how nicely it's presented to you, that is entirely your own personal flaw. That's the entire point of my post. Fuck people who need to be coddled into not having socially damaging views.
Patience vs. Impatience
I value patience in anyone trying to convince me of something. Why? Because in my mind, a person who's patient with me is someone who's also patient enough to do their due diligence. Quality research costs time and effort; so it's easier for patient people to do than for impatient people.
In addition, I can also feel more comfortable questioning a patient person. I can ask what they might consider to be a "stupid" question, and then come out more informed by the end of it. With an impatient person, I might be afraid they'll bite my head off or something...meaning I won't ask a question I really should've asked.
Furthermore, I view personal attacks as a sign of impatience. If someone calls me stupid, or a mindless zombie, or something as ridiculous as all that...then I'm more inclined to think of them as an "impatient" person. Patient people don't lose their cool like that; at least, I don't think so.
So yes, I value presentation in how information is given to me. I don't think that's a weakness, either. That's just part of debate.