I like a Good Argument, But…..

Arguments help to clarify  your thinking on a topic. They force you to hone your reasons, acknowledge the value of alternative points of view, and look more deeply into a topic than you would have had your beliefs not been challenged.

But these salutary effects happen only if the argument is, well, an argument. W. Blake Gray ran into one of those “non-argument arguments” recently:

A few weeks ago I wrote something nice about conventional wines, in a section about natural wines.

I got a DM from a guy I never heard of, but who has 10,000 followers: “Conventional wines often taste like shit. I don’t know what you are drinking but conventional wines are fraudulent wines. Mouse in natural wines, sure, it happens, but conventional wines to me are undrinkable. Too bad you are so biased and promoting stereotypes. Cheers.”

Hmmm. This lacks a certain self awareness don’t you think? Did this guy actually believe this would be persuasive?

Blake’s response was comprehensive, fact-based, a stirring defense of conventional wines from which I learned a great deal.”

There are many compelling points one can make about natural wines vs. conventional wines. But claims like “all conventional wines are undrinkable” or “all natural wines are undrinkable” just don’t fly.

Of course, Blake couldn’t resist a joke at the end:

When you consider the incredible breadth of conventional wine, it’s the most interesting beverage in the world.

Sweeping generalizations never make good arguments.

Oh, wait…