Of all my social confusion,
lies one of highest delusion.
Why does not one argument come to a derived conclusion?
I disagree with the purpose of argumentive intrusion.
Why must such a craft require an array of verbal illusion?
Arguments tend to end in naught but ideological seclusion.
Often-times nothing will come to collusion,
only to keep one's perceptions safe from argumentative contusion.

A master of argumentative success,
must equally so be a master of manipulative regress.
Such a man will not confess,
the view which they are attempting to redress,
is meaningless against the motives not so desprate to express.
In fact, most only argue to impress
others with their biased intellectual finesse.

Never have I understood the reason
one commits conversational treason
through arguing against a fact so equally concrete, as the current season.

I must admit,
Some indivisuals are such hardheads as to knit
Such a ridiculous argument
In which direction the world may spit.
Nevertheless, their persistance may have surprisingly led to humanity's benifit.
For such revolutionaries endured hell on earth not to seem verbally exquisite,
But suffered constant ridicule to conquer inhumanities so sturdy and timelessly infinite,
of which by most are commonly ignored, as such solutions seem exponentially intricate.

In my mind only one argument, with substantial purposeful persuasion,
has enough selfless reason for my toleration.
Unfortunatelly more often than not, victory comes to contamination.
Such rebellion leads only to a rebel's assassination.
Hence not only silencing a voice which lacked defensive evasion,
But also afflicting negitively the aforementioned sinful foundation,
which mistakefully percieved to have discarded their nuisance with complete deliberation.
Enough can be said with review of historical documentation,
It takes only one outspoken word met with retaliation
to assure such a foundation's damnation.

Furthermore, must I implore,
when one may choose a selfish argument to ignore?
When may one reach a decision upon listening to compressed perceptions furthermore,
to conclude selfish intention, impressing only narcissistic valour,
Thus resulting in the rise of an ideological dictator?

This hence forms the source of my confused mindset.
For the intentions of an argument are not easy to intercept.
Eversomore, focusing on such may cause one to become inept
To grow from anothers viewpoint, regardless of how mentally adept,
which might have been substantial enough to raise the listener's intellect.

Is it wrong to define
wisdom as a gift from the devine?
Or perhaps to incline
that knowledge without wisdom has a habit to shine
brighter than wisdom without knowledge, regardless of a bottom line
Only to allieviate society's impatient whine?

It is because of thus,
I argue with a sense of prioritiveness,
That most of our world's problems result through mindset selfishness,
with growing ignorance from all those who bear witness,
to injustices and immediate yet selfish solutions which only depress
the world of our ancestors who only ensured our future assets to transgress.
Existentialism was not theirs to express,
only toleration for arduous progress.
Arduous toleration, unfortuatelly is a lost quality of previous excess,
in which society must undoubtably repossess
To save what our ancestors built for us, selfless of their illness.

The illness of mortality is a selfless reason to prove,
the builders of our modern foundation played the right chess move,
to give us an affirmation, them to behoove,
that even in death they gave humanity the means to improve.

Thus, I have come to the understanding,
An argument does not give one the right of intellectual branding.
It was this former conception, although biased in itself, which caused my demanding
for improving my ability in ideological disbanding
of what might impare my wisdom by commanding
my side of an argument- concrete and notwithstanding
to the views of another's perceptions, resulting in corrosional sanding,
of the foundation of wisdom, endowed to all, constantly standing
Yet corrosion of wisdom results only in loss of what it means to be human, thus reprimanding.

It is therefore a common misconception,
that in order to obtain victorious change in another's perception,
one must argue that what they see in the water's reflection,
is the same to all, by means of manipulative deception.
Since when has anything so manipulative, even at inception,
to morally excuse bombardment, however oblivious to detection,
of an ideological foundation by means of perceptual contraception?

A single mental foundation may be all what one needs,
to radically change humanity, which currently recedes,
in morals which give human kind what it requires to succeed.
A single argument, regardless of whether it concedes,
with substantial knowledge, yet limited wisdom to proceed,
may be all it takes to impede,
a possible salvation, indeed.
Regardless to significance of a resulting deed,
one plants imposed perceptions into another's mindset with lust for only greed.
Depending on manipulative abundance, the point might be unwillingly agreed,
Replacing it on a victim's intellectual foundation to accede.
Doth repressing any chance of what is in great need.
Ideological diversity may be humanity's only chance to slow the bleed.
For it only takes one voice to plant the seed,
to rescue the generation to which we preceed.

Regardless of how concrete an idea may be in the fall,
By spring it may be regarded as ignorant biggotry to mention in the hall.
What one must understand about arguments, both big and small,
is that we must abstain from arguing a point to make us seem tall.
For to do so is simply to mock our selfless martyrs, their motives to maul.
Even in their time they were regarded as but ignorant thrall.
Most in their times, were hated by almost all.
It were these martyrs who inspired others to make the call,
that justice does not belong hidden behind a shawl.
Change only ends with a sprint, but must start with a crawl.
Were it not these crawlers who were to install
liberty and justice we read in history books yet nevertheless relay back as insignificant scrawl?
These humanites are widely studied with dismall
While our unappriciativness unknowingly leaves us open to withdrawal,
our momentary luxeries and misunderstood oppertunities come easier to fall.
How must it feel not to expierence a world in which your sacrifice liberized all,
yet the generation which does can't appriciate even the gift of a telephone call?
How must it seem to mourn the world you created to enthral,
Sadly watching it crumble from your portait hanging on the wall?

Debates must therefore be mutually desired,
To respectfully yearn for more wisdom to be aquired.
submission is perhaps the most difficult humility to be aspired,
For the gift of wisdom, one thing is but required,
Acceptance and respect on every contestable idea to be inspired,
by all, regardless of intellect, in order for wisdom to be transpired.
Unfortunately knowledge is the excuse of the impatiently wired,
As wisdom comes to all who have listened, yet to none who have conspired.