There are many varying opinions on this. Personally I believe there are many convincing arguments against suicide. I am not religious so i will leave those arguments for someone else. The most convincing argument I can think of is that when things are bad or when life is bad they/it almost always get better. When someone is depressed they have trouble realizing that and feel it will never get better. There are certain cases, most of them with terminal illness or with someone who has permanently lost control or function of their body that make this argument harder to argue.
Does this list make his argument more or less convincing? Why?
A convincing argument is supported by strong evidence, logical reasoning, and clear presentation. Additionally, considering counterarguments and addressing them effectively can also contribute to making an argument more convincing.
No.
An argument.
The list can make the argument more convincing by providing specific examples and supporting evidence. It can make the argument less convincing if the examples are weak or irrelevant to the main point being argued. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the list in strengthening the argument depends on the relevance and quality of the examples provided.
Macaulay's argument in favor of the Reform Bill of 1832 that were really convincing was his argument in favour of parliamentary reform. Thank you very much, but what exactly is his argument. I'm reading over the Bill and just cannot understand what his argument actually is.
It is a proof.
It confuses correlation with causation
No. The most convincing argument against skarmory's legendary status is the fact that you can catch more than one of them in the same game without cheating.
Providing evidence to support an argument strengthens it by adding credibility and persuasiveness. It shows that the argument is based on facts and research, making it more convincing to the audience.
It's called a proof
"cogent" means powerfully persuasive, reasonable and convincing. "A cogent argument."