“Obviously.” In my view, the word “obviously” should only be used in arguments when the point asserted is generally beyond debate. Consider an example. When discussing judicial nominations, you could say, “Obviously, Obama has the constitutional authority to nominate anyone he wants.” The word signifies that the point is a shared view that isn’t genuinely controversial. It helps the reader by announcing that you’re just establishing common ground.
“Obviously” tend to be an unpersuasive word because it is rarely used this way. Especially on the Internet. Most of the time, the word is used when the author has strong feelings. A view passionately held becomes so central to the speaker that it seems obvious to him. For example, “Obama is bad for America” becomes “Obama is obviously bad for America.” This usage usually backfires because it suggests the author doesn’t know or care about the views of anyone else. That is, the speaker is so wrapped up in his own perspective that he confuses the intensity of his own belief with its persuasiveness to others. Folks who are closed to the views of others don’t make very good advocates: The come off as cranks. So use “obviously” with caution.
UPDATE: Several commenters bring up the use of “obviously” in legal arguments specifically, especially in briefs. It’s much the same problem, with a slight twist: Some lawyers use words like “obviously” and “clearly” in briefs out of a sense that perhaps their apparent personal conviction and spirit will itself persuade the court. If a lawyer feels so strongly, the thinking goes, perhaps the court will assume that there must be truth behind the claim. But this always backfires: Judges more than anyone know that lawyers are advocates. As the saying goes, “When you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound on the law. When you have neither on your side, pound on the table.” Using words like “obviously” and “clearly” is just the written version of pounding on the table.
Phatty says:
In legal arguments, the word “clearly” is used much too often in a similar fashion.
November 25, 2009, 3:23 pmArthurKirkland says:
You must not appreciate it when someone opens an argument by describing a case as “simple” (or “obvious”, or “not complicated,” or “easy,” or “straightforward”), then spends a half-hour explaining how straightforward it is.
November 25, 2009, 3:25 pmMark Field says:
This post seems obviously correct to me.
November 25, 2009, 3:32 pmCountDuckula says:
Fish in a barrel. Obviously.
November 25, 2009, 3:34 pmArkady says:
On the other hand, the view here of everyone else seems to be in the forefront. From the blurb:
They obviously know who their audience is: whoever knows what the hell “modal” is.
November 25, 2009, 3:41 pmarbitraryaardvark says:
@Phatty: In my legal writing class, we were taught that clearly is a red flag; if OC’s brief says x is clearly y, it probably isn’t.
November 25, 2009, 3:51 pmaf says:
It goes without saying that Orin is right. Clearly the word “indubitably” is infinitely superior.
November 25, 2009, 3:58 pmPatent Dude says:
The principles set forth in the above post are especially true of legal arguments that center around 35 U.S.C. 103.
November 25, 2009, 4:01 pmUnkosher says:
Sometimes when finalizing a brief, I do a “find” search for “ly”– so I minimize or eliminate my use of words ending in “ly.”
November 25, 2009, 4:28 pmstevethepatentguy says:
One thing I have learned is there is very little that is obvious about 35 USC 103.
I mentally turn ‘obviously’ into ‘all right thinking people agree’ which makes me chuckle a little.
November 25, 2009, 4:28 pmloki says:
Reminds me of an earlier blog Volokh wrote about use of the word ‘arguably’.
http://volokh.com/2009/05/29/arguably-instead-of-argument/
November 25, 2009, 4:30 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I marked a lot of undergraduate math papers, and the error in the proof was always found next to ‘obviously’ or ‘trivial’.
November 25, 2009, 4:32 pmMalthus says:
“It is obvious that…” is used in physics texts and articles as a substitute for hand-waving.
November 25, 2009, 4:43 pmCheckEnclosed says:
Please do not discourage the use of “obviously”, “clearly”, and their kin in legal rhetoric. These are reliable markers for weak spots in arguments and any reduction in their use will make it harder for the rest of us. I suppose next you will be after those who refer to propositions as “well settled”, or the more colorful “black letter law”.
November 25, 2009, 5:25 pmPatrick216 says:
Obviously, Orin has lost a major appellate argument because his adversary began his/her discussion of a critical point of law with the word “obviously.”
November 25, 2009, 5:33 pmkrs says:
Unkosher’s right. Argument by adverb is a tool of the weak.
The other side’s “clearly” wrong, “desperately” and “halfheartedly” clinging to nonsensical logic that folds like a house of cards when the judges read my adverbs.
November 25, 2009, 6:13 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I use “obviously” when I’m stating something I need to state as part of my argument, narrative, whatever; but I don’t want the reader to think I think he/she didn’t already know it.
November 25, 2009, 6:17 pmIra Brad Matetsky says:
This post hit home to me because I argued an appeal a couple of weeks ago in which a main issue was whether a contract provision was ambiguous. I must have used one of these adverbs once too often without even realizing it, because one of the judges began a question to me by admonishing, “You keep saying ‘clearly.’” I stopped.
November 25, 2009, 6:20 pmreadery says:
‘Obvious’ translated into constitutionalese becomes “rational basis”.
And in exactly the same way — strong feelings mean people use language that used to mean “genuinely beyond debate” when they really mean “this is really important to me and I think the people who disagree with me are just bogus”.
Note position of period.
November 25, 2009, 6:42 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Readery, alternatively:
And in exactly the same way — strong feelings mean people use language that used to mean “genuinely beyond debate” when they really mean “This is really important to me and I think the people who disagree with me are just bogus.”.
November 25, 2009, 7:01 pmU.Va. Grad says:
I (obviously!) preferred my grandfather’s formulation of your closing:
“When the law is on your side and the facts are against you, argue the law. When the facts are on your side and the law is against you, argue the facts. When the law and the facts are against you, argue like hell.”
November 25, 2009, 7:30 pmGuy says:
I usually follow the British rule, but run into confusion with instances like these. If I’m writing by hand I fudge it by putting the period directly beneath the quote, then no one is the wiser.
November 25, 2009, 7:47 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Fence-sitter!
November 25, 2009, 8:06 pmEli says:
Prof. Kerr:
Great post! But it is “clearly” a hard habit to break.
November 25, 2009, 9:13 pmMark Field says:
Yeah, but they were just sitting there for 17 minutes. My trigger finger got itchy.
November 25, 2009, 10:11 pmSara says:
It has one obvious advantage. It trumpets the author’s conclusion.
November 26, 2009, 9:44 amSara says:
Or rather, it clearly trumpets the author’s conclusion.
November 26, 2009, 9:49 amBob_R says:
You beat me to this. In mathematics it is a dye marker for error or confusion.
November 26, 2009, 9:57 amshg says:
I believe Eugene made this point in this post from July, 2008: http://volokh.com/posts/1217371177.shtml
November 27, 2009, 6:43 amJen says:
The Idaho Law Review published an article on this topic last year. 45 Idaho L. Rev. 171 (2008).
November 27, 2009, 7:08 pm