Do You Know How to Argue? Part 1: Defining Terms

Most irresolvable arguments result not from intractable parties unwilling to compromise but from their inability or unwillingness  to clearly define their terms, or their unawareness of sound  argumentative principles. Arguments are useless without establishing definitions. I'm not talking about social arguments, such as whether a career in the public sector is better than one in the private sector. Talk that one up all night with your buddies over your hummus dips and G&Ts, for all I care. 

But a really useful argument requires us to set clearly established routes through which our rhetorical lines can go—if only all the TV pundits and politicians took heed! To illustrate, let's look at that weakly phrased proposition in the first paragraph.

As a first step in the public-private sector argument, let's see who's arguing. Assume one is a 32-year-old single woman without children happily employed for 3 years as a medical doctor in a group family practice and living in a Manhattan co-op apartment. The other is a 45-year-old male public high school gym teacher, also happy at his work for the past 13 years, and a homeowner in suburban Pennsylvania married to a 43-year-old public elementary school teacher with two children, a 9-year-old girl and 5-year-old boy. Of course, we can collect much more personal data if needed, but this is a starting point. Maybe one more item about the doctor and the gym teacher: Even though she prefers the private sector and he the public sector, they are open-minded about their position, a trait uncharacteristic of the times we live in, don't you think? Based on this information, the argument might be reworded to "A career in the private sector is better than one in the public sector for a doctor" or  "A career in the public sector is better than one in the private sector for a young family with a hefty mortgage and college bills on the horizon."

Next we need to consider whether by a career in the public sector we're talking about a career in government jobs or also those non-government organizations whose main source of income is government funding. Also, are we talking about federal, state, or municipal government careers? (There are differences.) What about the departments in those organizations? For private sector, we should also decide whether we mean only salaried jobs or self-employed careers too. Having reflected on those matters, we now change our proposition to Having a career as a purchasing manager in a federal government agency is better than one as a purchasing manager in a Fortune Global 500 corporation.

Now step 3. Should we continue to narrow our terms by mentioning the precise federal government agency and Fortune 500 company? What about the locations in the United States? Let's say the doctor and gym teacher settle on Having a career as a purchasing manager in the FBI in Washington, DC is better than one as a purchasing manager in Exxon Mobil in Irving, Texas.

With step 4 comes the choice of the comparison word better. What in the name of sanity does better mean? Better in what way? Support systems? Salary? Job security? Camaraderie? Paid time off? Growth opportunities? Professional development opportunities? Relocation options? Health benefits? Retirement benefits? Self-fulfillment? After-work area activities? We can go endlessly with this better word, so you can see the argument is bound to go in circles purposelessly without either person arguing persuasively or swaying the other.

Once we learn to define the terms of an argument, we'll often see that we have little to argue about because we agree with our presumed adversaries in most cases.

What's So Bad about Being Prepared?

My daughters and their husbands, who more than once have had to deal with my travel habits, just had to send me this article about a father planning to bring his family to the airport 14 hours before their scheduled flight. The just-in-case mentality of that dad reminded my family of me, and I must admit, they've got a point. I'm one of those what-if guys: What if we get a flat tire on the way to the airport? What if the road is closed because the President is in town? What if an accident backs up the traffic for miles and hours?

But I'll tell you why I have no apologies for such seemingly idiosyncratic behavior. It has served me well as a reader, writer, and student of life. For decades, that mindset has made me bring a favorite book to the bank, doctor's office, post office, and supermarket for something to read in peace while waiting my turn as everyone else fumes over how long the line is. That sentiment has gotten me up an hour early for years so that I can better concentrate on my writing assignment as the world sleeps. That attitude has made me show up at the airport early to squeeze in an extra hour of research time in the comfort of my seat while others aimlessly drift through the terminal shops. I have not struggled through flights from New York to Beijing, Mumbai, and Sydney because I am always prepared to learn something new from whatever I am reading at the moment. The habit of being prepared has moved this man of ordinary intelligence but boundless curiosity (which is what most of us are, but we may not realize it) from one successful 19-year career as an organizational director to another successful 23-year one as an independent communication consultant and, if I'm lucky to have the health, yet another as a full-time writer in the near future.

Of course, if you're a mom, dad, grandparent, aunt, uncle, big sister, or brother responsible for young children, you wouldn't want to get to the airport early just to watch your restless kids wreck terminal kiosks and trounce on people waiting for their flight. But just thinking of waiting as a privilege and not an inconvenience has transformed my life—and it could yours if it hasn't already. 

The Ridiculousness of Some Words

Many English words have multiple meanings, sometimes opposite ones, as I noted in my post on contronyms. These differences can pose huge problems for readers trying to understand ideas, intentions, or instructions. Take a look at this seemingly clear email from a work supervisor to his manager:

I lack staff so production will presently slow down. I should leave momentarily to ask Ava if her staff could give me a hand.

In those two brief sentences, the writer uses the four words below. What do they mean?

1. lack

A) not enough

B) not at all

2. presently 

A) now

B) soon

3. should

A) obligation

B) possibility

4. momentarily

A) in a moment

B) for a moment

If you answered both A and B for all four words, you would be correct. These contrasting meanings can pose heaps of clarity issues for the reader. Does the supervisor have fewer staff than usual or no staff where he writes lack? Where he writes presently, does he mean the production will slow down by the time his manager reads the email for an undetermined time or for just a short while, which could end by the time she reads his email? Is he demanding or requesting a leave from his workstation where he writes should? Does he want to leave in a moment or for a moment to ask Ava for support where he uses momentarily?

For these reasons, a more careful writer would have sent this email:

I have two fewer team members, so production is decreasing by 25%. I will leave at 8:30 a.m. to ask Ava for support, and I'll return by 8:50 a.m.

Be precise, especially when words have clashing meanings, by finding substitute words that eliminate some of the ambiguity.

BOOK BRIEF: You Can't Win

Stanley Fish. Winning Arguments: What Works and Doesn't Work in Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom (Harper Collins, 2016) 212 pages 

Here's the only sure thing we can all agree on: 1 + 1 = 2. Although the 7-minute Babak Anvari film Two & Two suggests a brutal way to deny even that truth, most reasonable, educated (and free) people  concur that any data short of equations can be shredded, twisted, and rerouted to suit nearly any subjective viewpoint.

If this inconvenient truth disturbs your sensibilities, you will take more than you can tolerate when reading Stanley Fish's Winning Arguments, whose fundamental claims are that to argue is human and that truth and context are inseparable. Fish cleverly reviews a broad range of arguments from Hollywood to the White House with the discernment of a trial lawyer and the creativity of a poet to show how winning arguments work and how inevitable they are. He describes how the ebbs and flows of changing conditions, participants, and evidence can make virtually any argument winnable.

The winning in the book title is more adjective than verb. If you're searching for tips on how to present your case more persuasively, you might look for other books. But if you're interested in how fabled arguments held sway over huge audiences in the right place and at the right time, you'll get more than your money's worth.