This is my entry in @theycallmedan's Free Speech Initiative. As usual with my ramblerants, expect a degree of stream-of-consciousness as I try to sort out my own thoughts by vomiting words onto the screen and then striving to edit them into something cohrent. Sorry in advance!
Why Free Speech?
As we wrestle with defining the boundary between avoiding trespass against others and the trespass of others against us, freedom of speech and the press becomes an issue of paramount importance. It is the core of advancing human knowledge and interaction.
Free speech is often considered dangerous, even though it is almost always proclaimed as a virtue, because it threatens established ideas and norms. New ideas are uncomfortable. Some ideas will be wrong, or downright destructive. But censorship does not purge bad ideas, much less discredit them. Instead, it may drive such discourse into underground echo chambers where bad ideas fester unchallenged like a cancerous growth. Other bad ideas are promoted as the status quo, not to be challenged because tradition is considered proof of validity.
We need to shine the light of open discourse on both such ideas so they may be tested. Truth will flourish, and falsehood will shrivel up and die. This is the chief benefit of free speech. But that is not its purpose. The purpose of free speech is the recognition of individual liberty. You have the right to be wrong, and to express your errors and falsehoods, even if you can never be persuaded of the truth. Any other position is a claim of ownership over you,and to trespass against others in such a way is to invite the same trespass against yourself.
In order to better exercise free speech, we must improve our rhetorical skills for effective speech. Toward that end, I would like to offer some guidelines for discourse. I can't say I always follow them myself, but I try.
Learn to recognize fallacies
This skill will improve the effectiveness of your own arguments while allowing you to more effectively address those put forth by your intellectual adversaries. Don't mischaracterize someone else's position to make it easier to attack. Don't target the person making the argument instead of what they actually argue. Try to recognize whether premises given support the conclusions offered. This can be a challenge, but no one promised that liberty would be an easy burden to bear.
Practice good grammar
A well-constructed sentence using the precise word for the occasion is an incredibly effective thing. We all make mistakes from time to time, but at the very least, try to avoid giving a lazy opponent an easy rebuttal based on your typos instead of your actual arguments.
Build your vocabulary
This goes hand-in-hand with the previous point. The more esoteric the subject, the more essential it can be to use the right terminology. Even so, many words have differing definitions depending on context. One obvious example is "capitalism," a word commonly used to describe the mutually-exclusive concepts of laissez-faire free markets and the current morass of corporate collusion with governments for subsidies, bailouts, protectionist regulations, etc.
Avoid vulgarity
Building again on the prior point, a good vocabulary also allows more eloquent discourse. The seven words you can never say on television can be incredibly satisfying to utter vehemently, but they are not effective if they drive away the audience you need most to reach.
Debate in good faith
It's easy to assume someone who disagrees with you is a lowlife scum who kicks kittens and wants to murder the elderly. It is far more difficult to assume they may have arrived at their conclusions honestly by relying on bad premises and/or poor arguments held in good faith. That is the courtesy you would want extended to you, is it not? If you are wrong, you do not want to be insulted. So follow the Golden Rule.
This is difficult when someone is so obviously wrong that they must be an imbecile, or else deliberately malicious. But remember, they may think the same of your position. They are right if you are literally advocating the ideology of Hitler or Stalin, but they might also have such a deep misunderstanding of your philosophy that they equate it with genocidal totalitarianism. Extend them the same courtesy you expect. You can't control someone else's thoughts, but being rude will reinforce their prejudice, while civility can erode it, even if only slightly.
Be aware of your audience
There are innumerable people out there seeking information and analysis. Especially on the internet, we should always be aware that there are lurkers who read, but do not comment. Here on Hive, there is no knowing how long our content will endure for people to find in the future. You may never persuade your opponent, but you may influence the curious public. How you present your position also impacts them, so they must always be considered as you craft what you say and write.
A fallacious screed filled with grammatical errors, vulgarity, and personal insults may be true, accurate, and deeply satisfying, but it will not be effective in either persuading your interlocutor or building public support.
I hope I have managed to edit my word salad into something rational, persuasive, and informative. Feel free to disagree with anything I have written here. How many typos, syntax errors, and other flaws did you find? Comments are welcome below. It's allegedly a free country, after all.
When it seems critically more important these days to win at any and all cost regardless of whether you're "right" or not, this is way too much common sense :)
Your editing appears to have been quite thorough.