No one needs to accept anything, I'd much rather listen to a badly worded, foul mouthed tirade that rang true, than eloquent diction, suffering from serious flaws in logic.
And yes you can have both, but that is not relevant to the argument. The interesting part is that x, (being well spoken), is not a necessary and sufficient condition for y(having a solid argument), yet many behave as if that is the case.
Suit yourself. But time is well-spent learning to craft readable sentences.
> The interesting part is that x, (being well spoken), is not a necessary and sufficient condition for y(having a solid argument)
It's necessary but not sufficient. Having literary skill won't save a bad argument, but lacking literary skill will surely undermine a good one.
Grammatical ability is a sign of respect for the reader/listener. Without that sign of respect, one is placed at a crippling disadvantage in advance of presenting the argument.
It's not necessary nor sufficient. The logic of argument, does not rely on the emotions of a listener.
Eg.
Claim1: The motherfucking sun is deff larger than da moonz!
Without getting into petty semantic deconstruction, the essence of the statement is true, regardless of the respect (or lack thereof) for the listener. You seem to be confusing logic, with persuasion and communication.
> The logic of argument, does not rely on the emotions of a listener.
No, only the outcome -- effective communication.
> You seem to be confusing logic, with persuasion and communication.
You seem to be confused about the purpose of writing -- which is effective communication. Without an awareness of the recipient, writing becomes onanism.
BTW apropos the topic, both your sentences above contain an unnecessary comma.
And yes you can have both, but that is not relevant to the argument. The interesting part is that x, (being well spoken), is not a necessary and sufficient condition for y(having a solid argument), yet many behave as if that is the case.