I write a fairly informal, opinionated blog about a variety of subjects, politics, relationships, mental well being, general life observations etc.
I'm trying to make my writing more concise - to convey my ideas in a nice bite sized package.
I'm wondering about whether one writing trope I use is necessary - 'I would argue...', 'One could argue...', 'One might suggest...', 'One way of looking at this...'.
I would argue that the best way to genuinely meet people is to join social groups - reading groups, dance groups etc. Online dating should be relegated to a simple pick me in your down time - while relaxing in the evenings, or riding the bus to work.
This is clearly an opinion I hold, rather a backed up fact about the world.
If it were backed by academic research, I would explictly state that.
One study showed that...
My question is - how necessary is it for me to qualify the statement with the opening 'I would argue'/'One could argue'?
For example - could I just say:
The best way to genuinely meet people is to join social groups - reading groups, dance groups etc. Online dating should be relegated to a simple pick me in your down time - while relaxing in the evenings, or riding the bus to work.
I guess what it comes down to is the tone of your writing and how you want the writing to be perceived by your audience. For example if you're wanting to come across as confident and knowledgeable, for example in a sales pitch, you might drop the qualifier, whereas more approachable and inviting debate you might use.
I think the question is - are there examples where the use of the qualifier is effective - and not effective?