The following was my homework assignment for my course on Critical Thinking and Ethics. My objective was too explain what constitutes a good argument and to elaborate what a rational discussion. It’s quite a long read, so I appreciate anyone who gets through it.
Throughout our lives we are presented with all sorts of claims and assertions which challenge our preconceived beliefs. Some of these claims may be malicious or, even if well-intentioned, false, and accepting them uncritically can be detrimental. Even the most seemingly convincing or wholesome arguments may turn out to be faulty or insidious. Therefore, what (and by extension who) we choose to believe matters tremendously to our individual and collective progress.
But in an era when we’re constantly saturated with all sorts of claims, the task of sifting out the good points from the bad can appear daunting, if not impossible. Thus, it is important to understand and utilize the standard criteria that determine an argument’s legitimacy. Every argument, no matter how variable their structure or presentation, can be judged on the same standards.
Before we can identify what constitutes a good argument in particular, we must understand what comprises an argument in general. Contrary to the colloquial use of the term (namely for any verbal disagreement that may involve raised voices, aggression, and profanity), an argument is broadly defined as a set of statements that includes a conclusion preceded by one or more premises that provide reasons to believe in the truth of said conclusion. Put another way, an argument consists of a main point (what you’re arguing for) and what you’re using to prove that point.
Thus, arguments can be quite variable in their content and intent. Many arguments may be profound enough to change the course of our lives, if not human history – examples would include arguments for or against slavery, or arguments seeking to prove evolution. Conversely, other arguments may be so mundane as to go unnoticed for what they are, such as commercial advertisements that seek to persuade us to purchase a good or service.
Regardless, every argument is designed to convince you to accept the truth of a particular assertion (the conclusion) based on evidence, facts, and other supporting details (the premise or premises). With this in mind, we can begin to discern what makes for a good argument, as based on whether they meet the following four principles.
First, a good argument is one in which the premises are true (or at least accepted as true). If the basis of your conclusion false, or seen by others as false, then there’s little reason to believe in the point your trying to make: bad evidence makes for a bad argument.
For example, consider that I am trying to argue that Obama was a terrible president, and that I base this conclusion on the “fact” (premise) that Obama went to war withMexico. However, Obama obviously did no such thing, which undermines the credibility of my argument. Why should you believe Obama is a bad president if the only proof I offer you is clearly false? Clearly, I’m making a bad argument.
Second, the premises of the conclusion must be relevant to the truth of the conclusion. In other words, a good argument will utilize facts that actually have something to do with the point you’re trying to make. If you’re going to argue that the American economy is at its worst condition ever, it makes no sense for your supporting premise to cite economic data fromNew Zealand. Not only would this indicate that you lack proper support for your argument, but it would also undercut your credibility as a source – if you can’t put together your argument, why should anyone trust what you have to say?
Similarly, the third criterion of a good argument is that the set of premises must provide sufficient grounds for justifying belief in the truth of the conclusion. Not only must a premise be relevant, but it must be credible enough to support your conclusion. Granted, what constitutes reliability varies widely depending on the individual, but there are some general ideas most people would agree with.
Consider that I’m arguing for a set of characteristics that I feel make for a good politician. Most people would agree that things such as integrity, honesty, and morality are pertinent qualities. But what if my supporting argument was, instead, that an effective politician should have good fashion sense, nice hair, and be fromOhio? Now you may find someone out there that would sincerely agree with these premises (it’s a big world after all), but by and large, the overwhelming majority of people would find them unsatisfactory in proving that someone is qualified to be a good politician.
The fourth and final principle of a good argument is that it must expect possible criticisms and have ready some rebuttals ready. Argumentation is, by its very nature, an interactive process – if you’re going to argue with someone, you cannot expect it to be a one-sided conversation (at least not always). Everyone is opinionated in some way, and the fact that you’re trying to persuade them in the first place suggests that they probably don’t see eye-to-eye with you, and will thus likely debate your point.
For example, say that I am arguing thatMiami-DadeCollegeis a good school to attend. My argument meets the first three principles we’ve discussed: my premises are true, they are relevant, and they are legitimate enough to justify my point. However, my argument falls apart the moment someone rallies counter-points that discredit my conclusion. I have no good defenses to offer, and I clearly didn’t seem ready to debate. I’m down in the very first round.
I can’t realistically expect people to be persuaded from the very beginning. A strong argument is one that can withstand criticism, and if your opponent or audience notices your inability to bolster your own point, they may see little reason to take you or your argument seriously. So think of arguing as a barter between ideas, one in which you should be ready to haggle with your opponent rather than assume your first case is a done deal.
Now that we’ve established the four factors that make for a good argument, we should look at what makes for a good discussion: after all, we should recall that arguments are interactive by nature. It is one thing to make a strong and effective argument, but it’s another thing to conduct said argument in a strong and effective way. How you argue with someone is perhaps just as important as what you’re arguing, and even the best arguments will come to nothing if the participants debate it with the wrong attitude or approach.
So what makes for a good debate? Well for starters, it’s best to view interactions between opponents as rational discussions rather than fights or contests. This isn’t just a matter of semantics: a rational discussion – which you can also call a rational discourse, conversation, or dialogue – consists of two or more people who disagree about something and are trying to determine what is true.
Therein lays one principle of rational discussion: there must be a mutual understanding that the arguments you’re sharing are for finding the truth of a particular matter rather than winning. It’s not about trying to prove you’re better or smarter than someone, but about educating each other (and yourselves) in the process of discussing. A rational discussion should be devoid of egotism, competitiveness, and intolerance, and instead been seen as opportunity to learn through an exchange of ideas. You and your opponent should be concerned only with the truth, and not with simply proving each other wrong for its own sake.
A good idea is to see the search for truth as one that is collective in nature: no man (or woman) is an island, and in our pursuit of wisdom, we need others to help us along the way. Look at any great invention, idea, or innovation and you’ll find that multiple people played a part, either directly or by having their work improved upon by another. After all, we’re each just one individual in a large and complex world. You can only experience and know so much, and you’re bound to miss something. So sharing your thoughts with others is one way in which we test our ideas and learn about other perspectives and facts we may never have known.
This segues nicely to another principle of rational discussion, in which each participant must agree to the possibility that they might be wrong. The human mind is fallible: we can only know so much given the restrictions in time, geography, or expertise. No matter how well-read or confident we are about a given subject, we have no reason to think we’re completely right: after all, look at the long history of societies that thought they knew the world was flat, slavery was acceptable, the Earth was the center of the universe, and so on. It is only when humans have been willing to question what is assumed fact that we’ve come to learn more about ourselves and the universe.
This is why I am a fan of dialectical methods, such as the Socratic debate (also known as Socratic dialogue or the dialectical method). This is the idea that opposing viewpoints should be openly exchanged in a civil manner interceded with inquiries and reflections that stimulate critical thinking. If everyone brings something to the table, and allows others to do the same, it leads to a lot of illumination about perspectives, alternatives, and ideas we may otherwise have never known about it.
The next prerequisite to rational discourse is more practical and seemingly mundane, but it’s no less important: participants must attempt to be as clear as possible in presenting their argument. This goes beyond ensuring proper spelling, grammar, annunciation, and the like (though all that is important as well). Many fights, or even wars, have been started by people miscommunicating and misunderstanding each other. Many people will expend more time and energy trying to clarify what they meant to say, than they will arguing the point itself. Obviously, this is very unproductive, and it can furthermore lead to animosity or frustration that will preempt the discussion.
Thus, never assume that your opponent uses a word the same way you do, or formulates the same sort of conceptualizations. For example, someone may not understand a particular saying or proverb that you may personally find obvious. Their semantics and vocabulary may be different too. It’s important to tailor your argument, and how you present it, based on the audience. You’re (hopefully) going to use very different words or ideas when communicating to an auditorium of Nobel Prize winners versus a stadium full of sports fans.
It never hurts to intermittingly ask your opponent if he or she understands you, or if you point needs to be re-explained. Doing so is not only practical, but also polite, and your opponent may appreciate such efforts enough to be amicable to your point of view. Speaking in an unclear manner may only make you seem aloof, arrogant, or condescending, and you’ll have a harder time getting people’s attention.
In a similar vein, always conduct your rational discussion with the principle of charity in mind: this consists of making the honest effort to interpret your opponent’s argument as strongly as possible. Put simply, it’s about you and your opponent giving each other the benefit of the doubt by viewing your respective arguments as strongly and sensibly as possible.
For example, let us say there is a competition between two gymnasts who are each seeking to prove that they are the best in their field. If one gymnast is suffering a leg injury, and for obvious reasons, subsequently loses the contest, would it be fair to assume she lost because of lack of skill? She wasn’t at her fullest potential, so the competition didn’t really prove anything. Similarly, it’d be unfair to challenge your opponent’s argument by mischaracterizing or weakening it. A common form of this is known as the straw man fallacy, in which someone claims to have successfully refuted an argument when instead, they’ve attacked a weaker or corrupted version of it that seems superficially similar.
So let’s say that my opponent is arguing that we should raise taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for social programs. Instead of viewing this argument as legitimate and rational, and debating its merits accordingly, I “attack a straw man” (and thereby violate the principle of charity) by claiming that he wants to steal from hardworking people and give money to the undeserving poor. My opponent said no such thing, but I’m distorting his statement while also making him seem like an awful person. Furthermore, not only is this dishonest, but it deprives us each of having a decent and educational discussion.
The exchange of ideas and the practice of freethinking are the most crucial elements to bettering ourselves, society, and the world. Such an exercise is subsequently dependent upon an attitude that welcomes challenges to conventional wisdom – especially your own – and critically reflecting on what you believe and why you believe it.
Sarvodaya 