Hey, decided to write up the third part to this little quasi-series of mine about the correct manner to make an argumentative statement. Now, I've always addressed logical fallacies, but here I'll address something even more important. You see, most logical fallacies aren't accidental. Some of them are, because they can be rather sneaky, or a person simply incorrect states their point (through no fault of their own). But the majority of fallacies are purposeful.

By "purposeful" I mean that you either honestly believe that this line is logical, (for example, you believe an Ad Hominem attack is a completely reasonable argument to make), or you're maliciously attempting to mislead your audience (this particularly heinous in my book). But either way, they spawn from the same overall problem. Bias.

Now of course, that was a rather general statement so I'll be more specific, when people allow their bias to cloud or otherwise taint their logic. This is particularly true on heated issues such as abortion, foreign policy, and gay rights. Both sides tend to let their emotions and bias get in the way of facts. And unfortunately, the more extreme people tend to have a much louder voice, because there's typically more of them, than us.

Now, I've heard two lines regarding neutrality, that make me rather upset. One was from a friend, who stated that "Neutrality is the argument of confusion, apathy, or ignorance." The other was a famous quote, which I believe goes: "There is a special place in Hell for those, who during great times of moral crisis, claim neutrality."

These, in my opinion are hugely egregious statements. After all, neutrality is NOT a bad stance to take. There is some truth in that many who are neutral either don't know the issue, don't care, or are confused as to the importance of an issue. But to say that Neutrality is a stance only taken by those who feel that way...is a big mistake. After all, given the heated polarization that some topic tend to generate, there is an understandable desire NOT to take a side.

Of course for most, choosing not to take a side is viewed as a cop-out. What's even worse, is when you take BOTH sides (aka Moderation) and get slammed as being wishy-washy. But, when making an arugmentative statement, moderation and neutrality are the way to go.

Remember what I said about, when making an arugment you acknowledge counter-arguments and possible weaknesses. This is called academic honesty. Those of you science majors should we well aware of this process and the saying "Publish or Die." That is to say, in order for an idea to appear logical, sound, and sturdy, you MUST, I repeat, MUST acknowledge it's flaws or imperfections. That's not to say that you can't offer counter points to these counter arguments, but you must recognize your own weakness.

Now for many and especially in the political arena, this is unheard of, or treated as a stupid idea. After all, why admit to weakness and give your opponents an opening? What most don't recognize is that in approaching from a stance of moderation, you actually leave yourself FEWER openings. After all, if you acknowledge your own possible problems, your opponents can't use them against you, since you've already addressed them. Looks quite silly to have someone rant about an issue you've already recognized, huh?

That being said, while there are plenty of upsides to Neutrality and Moderation, be prepared to deal with the big nasty issues that go along with it, mostly the fact that, as you stand in the room, rather than your back to either wall, you leave yourself open to assault from all sides. But remember. It's ALWAYS better to be somewhat displaced from a particularly heated argument, to take a stance somewhere in the middle, then to let yourself be dragged to one extreme or the other.