Avoid Jargon

Connect with customers by using clear language that builds trust and understanding.

Introduction

You can use this strategy in formal debates, panels, public discourse, internal reviews, media interviews, and executive meetings. This guide explains when plain language fits, how to execute it without losing accuracy, how to rebut jargon-heavy arguments, and the ethical guardrails that protect credibility.

In sales settings like bake-offs, steering-committee reviews, and RFP defenses, avoiding jargon lets decision-makers compare options without decoding vocabulary. It protects clarity and collaboration.

Debate vs. Negotiation - why the difference matters

Primary aim

•Debate: Optimize truth-seeking and audience persuasion. Plain language increases comprehension and fair weighing.

•Negotiation: Optimize agreement creation. Plain language reduces misunderstanding and speeds commitment.

Success criteria

•Debate: Argument quality, clarity, and audience judgment against a decision rule.

•Negotiation: Mutual value, executable terms, and verifiable safeguards.

Moves and tone

•Debate: Claims, evidence, logic, refutation - expressed in words the audience already knows.

•Negotiation: Trades, packages, timing, reciprocity - expressed in concrete, testable terms.

Guardrail

Do not import combative debate tone into cooperative negotiation moments. The same plain words should lower heat, not raise it.

Definition & Placement in Argumentation Frameworks

•Claim - Warrant - Impact: Plain words make the warrant visible and the impact legible.

•Toulmin: Data and backing remain technical if needed, but the explanation is in everyday language.

•Burden of proof: The burden is easier to judge when terms are defined once and used consistently.

•Weighing and clash: When both sides avoid jargon, the audience can compare outcomes instead of decoding vocabulary.

Not the same as

•Metaphor-for-style: Rhetorical flair without testable content.

•Framing the motion: That sets what matters. Avoiding jargon sets how everyone understands it.

Mechanism of Action - step by step

1) Setup

•Identify likely unknown terms for this audience.

•Decide which terms you must keep for accuracy and define them once.

•Prepare plain-language labels for your 2-3 key points.

2) Deployment

•Lead with the decision rule in short words.

•Translate each claim into a one-sentence plain statement.

•When a technical term is required, define it in 10 words or fewer, then use it consistently.

•Use concrete numbers, ratios, and simple comparisons.

3) Audience processing

Plain language boosts processing fluency - ideas feel easier to understand and remember. It lowers cognitive load by removing decoding effort. Paired with examples, it increases coherence and relevance. People recall reasons, not just labels.

4) Impact

•Faster comprehension under time pressure.

•Fewer disputes about definitions and scope.

•Stronger credibility because clarity looks like control, not ignorance.

Do not use when

Situation	Why it backfires	Better move
Regulatory or legal wording is binding	Paraphrase could change meaning	Quote the clause, then explain plainly
Highly technical peer review	Over-simplification loses precision	Keep technical terms, but add plain summary
Crisis directives	Friendly phrasing may blur urgency	Use short, direct imperatives and single definitions
Bad-faith opponents	They twist simplified phrasing	Keep definitions tight, cite source text as needed

Cognitive links: Processing fluency improves trust and recall when content is accurate (Reber et al., 2004). Reducing extraneous cognitive load supports understanding and transfer (Sweller, 1988). Clear, concrete wording aids reasoning and decision quality (Kahneman, 2011). Guidance on plain language shows large comprehension gains without loss of accuracy when terms are defined once (PlainLanguage.gov, various).

Preparation: Argument Architecture

Thesis & burden of proof

Write your thesis in one plain sentence, then state the burden in the audience’s units.

Example:

Thesis: Multi-factor authentication reduces account takeovers at small daily cost.

Burden: Show breach reduction, friction bounds, and cost per user.

Structure

Claims → warrants → data → impacts. For each claim:

•One plain statement

•One definition for any necessary term

•One decisive number with context

•One real-world example

Steel-man first

Write the best version of the other side in plain language. Rapport rises. Your later rebuttal lands cleaner.

Evidence pack

•One or two auditable stats per claim

•A short glossary: 5-10 terms with one-line definitions

•A table of conversions or baselines so numbers are relatable

Audience map

•Executives: want one-slide summaries with definitions in footnotes.

•Analysts: accept definitions if sources are cited and stable.

•Public/media: need examples and absolute numbers.

•Students: need step-by-step structure, then terms.

Optional sales prep

•Map evaluator roles to clarity needs: technical owner wants methods and definitions, sponsor wants risk in simple units, procurement wants apples-to-apples metrics.

Practical Application: Playbooks by Forum

Formal debate or panels

Moves

1.State the rule in plain terms: cost per outcome, reliability, or fairness.

2.Label each contention in simple words.

3.Define any must-keep term once.

4.In clash, translate the opponent’s claim fairly before rebuttal.

Phrases

•"The right test is cost per successful outcome."

•"By 'latency' we mean response time - how many milliseconds the user waits."

Executive or board reviews

Moves

•Title slides with verdict lines, not topic labels.

•Put any required jargon in a gray box with a one-line definition.

•Keep a small appendix with full technical detail.

Phrases

•"We cut waiting time from 2 seconds to 1.2 seconds - a 40 percent drop."

Written formats - op-eds, memos, position papers

Template

•Opening: one plain thesis and the rule.

•Body: three clear sections with one number and one example each.

•Closing: verdict tied to the rule.

Fill-in-the-blank lines

•"The decision rests on ___, measured by ___."

•"By ___ we mean ___."

•"Compared with last year, ___ changed from ___ to ___."

•"Even if ___, the result still holds because ___."

•"A simple way to see this is ___."

Optional sales forums - RFP defense, bake-off demo Q&A, security review

Mini-script - 6 lines

1."Your rubric is reliability, cost, and ease of use."

2."Reliability means fewer false alarms. On your data, ours are 4 times fewer."

3."Cost is cost per transaction. Ours is 22 percent lower at steady load."

4."Ease of use is time to complete a task. We save 40 seconds per case."

5."If pilot speed matters most, Vendor B is strong. If reliability rules, we lead."

6."We will publish the same simple metrics every month."

Why it works: the vocabulary belongs to the buyer, not the vendor.

Examples Across Contexts

Public policy or media

•Setup: Debate on congestion pricing.

•Move: "The goal is shorter trips at rush hour. A fee during peak times nudges some trips to off-peak. In cities that tried it, average speeds rose about 10 to 15 percent."

•Why it works: Plain intent, mechanism, and scale.

•Ethical safeguard: Explain equity rebates in simple terms.

Product or UX review

•Setup: Proposal to add progressive disclosure.

•Move: "We teach basics on day one and advanced steps later. In tests, new users finished setup 18 percent more often."

•Why it works: No jargon about "cognitive scaffolding" - just outcome.

•Safeguard: Offer a fast path for experts.

Internal strategy meeting

•Setup: Centralize data access.

•Move: "Right now teams wait 3 days on average. The hub model cuts the wait to 1 day. Risks are access mistakes, so we add two checks."

•Why it works: Everyday words, clear trade-offs.

•Safeguard: Publish error metrics.

Sales comparison panel

•Setup: Choosing an analytics vendor.

•Move: "False alarms waste engineer time. On your sample, we raised 25 alerts, they raised 100. Yours flagged 4 times more. We save hours."

•Why it works: Plain units that match buyer pain.

•Safeguard: No mockery, just the shared test.

Common Pitfalls & How to Avoid Them

Pitfall	Why it backfires	Corrective action or phrasing
Jargon fog	Audience checks out	Replace with everyday words or define once
Acronym soup	Memory overload	Limit to 3 acronyms, define at first use
Shorthand without scale	No sense of size	Give absolute and relative numbers
Metaphor only	Pretty but vague	Pair with one metric and one example
Over-simplification	Loses accuracy	Keep the term, add a plain translation
Speed-talk	Blocks comprehension	Short sentences, measured pace
Definition drift	Breaks trust	Use one stable definition across the talk

Ethics, Respect, and Culture

•Rigor vs. performance: Clarity should reveal limits, not hide them.

•Respect: Define terms without condescension. Credit the other side for valid concerns.

•Accessibility: Use short sentences, concrete examples, and readable slides. Provide alt text for visuals.

•Cross-cultural notes:

•Direct cultures accept blunt definitions if respectful.

•Indirect cultures may prefer softer phrasing like "By this, we mean..."

•In hierarchical settings, confirm definitions with the chair ahead of time.

Move/Step	When to use	What to say/do	Audience cue to pivot	Risk & safeguard
Set the rule	Opening	"Judge this by ___."	Nods, note-taking	Do not change later
Define once	Early	"By ___ we mean ___."	Fewer clarifying questions	Keep under 10 words
Use plain labels	Throughout	Title slides with verdicts	Faster note-taking	Avoid clever slogans
Give scale	Main case	Absolute and relative numbers	Pens down, listening	Show base and time frame
Translate opponent	Clash	Paraphrase in everyday words	Tension lowers	Quote accurately
Re-anchor	After rebuttal	"Under the ___ test, ___ wins."	Focus returns to criteria	No moving goalposts
Sales row	Evaluation	"Reliability, cost, ease of use - here are the numbers."	Scorers align to rubric	Cite tests and sources

Review & Improvement

•Post-debate debrief: Did people repeat your definitions and result lines.

•Red-team drills: Colleagues rewrite your slides in simpler words - accept edits that keep accuracy.

•Timing drills: 10 second definition, 20 second example, 10 second metric.

•Slide hygiene: One idea per slide, titles that state the takeaway.

•Crystallization sprints: Summarize rule, plain thesis, and one proof in three sentences.

Conclusion

Actionable takeaway: For your next debate-like setting, list 5 terms that might confuse. Replace each with an everyday phrase or define it in one short line, then use that definition consistently.

Checklist

Do

•State the decision rule in plain words

•Define necessary terms once, then use them consistently

•Pair each claim with one number and one concrete example

•Translate the opponent’s point fairly before rebuttal

•Use short sentences and measured pace

•Keep a small glossary or definition box

•Show both absolute and relative numbers

•Debrief for clarity and consistency

Avoid

•Acronym soup and shifting definitions

•Metaphors without metrics

•Speed-talk or sarcasm

•Over-simplification that changes meaning

•Moving goalposts mid-argument

•Slide dumps with tiny text

•Ignoring accessibility needs

•Ending without a clear verdict line

References

•Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow.**

•PlainLanguage.gov (2023). Guidelines for Plain Language.

•Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure.

•Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving.

•Pinker, S. (2014). The Sense of Style.

•Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to Stick.