Part 1 of this series on arguing well notes that an argument needs to be clearly stated. If one American votes Democratic and her neighbor votes Republican, they are not engaging in an argument. They are voting. But if she claims that her candidate would make a better leader, she would need to qualify that statement for an argument. She might say the Democratic candidate follows through on pledges more regularly than the Republican, or has more expansive government experience, or speaks more eloquently, or supports gun reform more ardently through his voting record.
Part 2 looks at the rules of arguing, such as how long should the argument run, what will be the range of talking points, how will the argument be resolved, who will resolve it, and whether a judge is necessary.
After defining the terms of the argument and setting the rules, let the argument begin—but keep the lines of argumentation in check. For a purposeful argument, we'll need to be faithful to two principles: stick to the point of the argument and refrain from logical fallacies. We'll cover each of these separately.
Stick to the point. Let's say we agree to argue about whether the Democratic candidate has more expansive government experience than the Republican candidate. The Democratic supporter might say her candidate has been a town mayor for eight years. Fair enough. Now the Republican supporter replies his candidate has six years experience, two in the town council, two in the state assembly, and two as US attorney general. The Democratic supporter must concede that while her candidate has more years of experience, her opponent's is more expansive, on the town, state, and federal levels. This fact alone may not be sufficient for the Republican supporter to win the argument, but he is winning 1-0. Perhaps the Democratic supporter can talk about her candidate's service on state and federal commissions, or her four-year stint as a naval officer. But she would not want to talk about her years as a corporate attorney unless she had government clients.
Avoid logical fallacies. Using them will surely erode, if not completely destroy, your credibility. In 2006, I wrote a 20-part series on logical fallacies, such as:
Part 2 looks at the rules of arguing, such as how long should the argument run, what will be the range of talking points, how will the argument be resolved, who will resolve it, and whether a judge is necessary.
After defining the terms of the argument and setting the rules, let the argument begin—but keep the lines of argumentation in check. For a purposeful argument, we'll need to be faithful to two principles: stick to the point of the argument and refrain from logical fallacies. We'll cover each of these separately.
Stick to the point. Let's say we agree to argue about whether the Democratic candidate has more expansive government experience than the Republican candidate. The Democratic supporter might say her candidate has been a town mayor for eight years. Fair enough. Now the Republican supporter replies his candidate has six years experience, two in the town council, two in the state assembly, and two as US attorney general. The Democratic supporter must concede that while her candidate has more years of experience, her opponent's is more expansive, on the town, state, and federal levels. This fact alone may not be sufficient for the Republican supporter to win the argument, but he is winning 1-0. Perhaps the Democratic supporter can talk about her candidate's service on state and federal commissions, or her four-year stint as a naval officer. But she would not want to talk about her years as a corporate attorney unless she had government clients.
Avoid logical fallacies. Using them will surely erode, if not completely destroy, your credibility. In 2006, I wrote a 20-part series on logical fallacies, such as:
- straw man, misrepresenting an opponent's position to destroy its credibility. Example: Since you like the Democratic candidate, you hate Republicans.
- ad hominem, attacking the person, not the position. Example: You like the Democratic candidate, but you have been wrong on so many other issues, so you're wrong now.
- unequal comparison, equating unequal ideas. Example: Voting for the Democratic candidate is like voting for a monarchy.
- guilt by association, inappropriately associating an idea or a person with another discredited idea or person to refute an argument. Example: Ten years ago you voted for a candidate who ended up in prison, so why should your voting preference have any credibility?
