Quotes

Do they really add anything to an argument? I have seen plenty of people quoting famous writers or intellectuals from the past in order to make some kind of point, and it sounds rather convincing to be honest.

Do they really add anything to an argument? I have seen plenty of people quoting famous writers or intellectuals from the past in order to make some kind of point, and it sounds rather convincing to be honest.
You mean it doesn't sound convincing?
Do they really add anything to an argument? I have seen plenty of people quoting famous writers or intellectuals from the past in order to make some kind of point, and it sounds rather convincing to be honest.
A sound argument is still sound, regardless of the punctuation. You may be looking for ways to pick apart those who disagree with you instead of addressing the argument they are making.

I consider quotes to be like pepper on eggs, it enhances the point you want to make. However, remember that all quotes are cherry picked from a larger narrative and you have to be careful lest your opponent checks from whence it came,as the context it was taken from might have a totally different meaning, e.g. I once attended a talk given by a Vietnam vet at our local historical society and it turned out to be a lecture on how Christianity was the foundation of our legal system. I didn’t know it at the time but he was also an evangelical preacher and he cherry picked several quotes from the Founders to make his point, all of them from revisionist and rabid fundie David Barton, and all taken out of context and embellished with an evangelical Xtian context. It even left the head of the Historical society open mouthed and embarrassed. So, in essence, a quote, like an anecdote may only enhance an argument. Just be careful to read the full text before using the quote.
Cap’t Jack

Do they really add anything to an argument? I have seen plenty of people quoting famous writers or intellectuals from the past in order to make some kind of point, and it sounds rather convincing to be honest.
A sound argument is still sound, regardless of the punctuation. You may be looking for ways to pick apart those who disagree with you instead of addressing the argument they are making. It's more like jamming quotes into the argument to make a point, but in doing so you lose coherence. Like they start off making a point and then jam a quote in to make it sound like a fact of life. But aren't all those quote by such people opinions in the end?
Do they really add anything to an argument? I have seen plenty of people quoting famous writers or intellectuals from the past in order to make some kind of point, and it sounds rather convincing to be honest.
A sound argument is still sound, regardless of the punctuation. You may be looking for ways to pick apart those who disagree with you instead of addressing the argument they are making. It's more like jamming quotes into the argument to make a point, but in doing so you lose coherence. Like they start off making a point and then jam a quote in to make it sound like a fact of life. But aren't all those quote by such people opinions in the end? You seem to be morphing into some kind of apologist.

Quotes used judiciously can spice up a narrative. They can be overdone and badly placed, however.
Lois

Do they really add anything to an argument? I have seen plenty of people quoting famous writers or intellectuals from the past in order to make some kind of point, and it sounds rather convincing to be honest.
A sound argument is still sound, regardless of the punctuation. You may be looking for ways to pick apart those who disagree with you instead of addressing the argument they are making. It's more like jamming quotes into the argument to make a point, but in doing so you lose coherence. Like they start off making a point and then jam a quote in to make it sound like a fact of life. But aren't all those quote by such people opinions in the end? You seem to be morphing into some kind of apologist. I'm not sure I follow.

When I cite a quote by a famous person, it’s not so much because he/she is famous, but because the words he chose made the point much more clearly, succinctly and vividly and than I ever could. (Then of course, I generally have to amplify and explain to my audience exactly what I meant. :slight_smile: )

When I cite a quote by a famous person, it's not so much because he/she is famous, but because the words he chose made the point much more clearly, succinctly and vividly and than I ever could. (Then of course, I generally have to amplify and explain to my audience exactly what I meant. :) )
I agree. Quotes that get my point across better than I could using my own writing 'skills' are valuable to both sides of the discussion. Quote dropping to try and sound smart isn't a good idea. But when used to make your post interesting and fun and better, why not? And I quite like reading well written quotes from the past - it makes me feel connected with people who are long gone but who's ideas are still alive. There isn't a best way to write, so we each do our best and hope it works. Tastes vary, but don't let your taste prevent you from receiving the message.

Quotes also serve to back up your opinions, sort of like citing sources in a college paper.