Preparing a Reasonable Argument
One skill of good debating is being able to
construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and - especially important
- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not
whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning,
but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and
whether that premise is true.
When developing your argument, consider the following factors:
- Wherever possible offer independent confirmation
of the "facts."
- Prepare for substantive debate on the evidence by considering
all points of view.
- Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities"
have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps
a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at
most, there are experts.
- Prepare more than one case. If there's something to
be defined, think of all the different ways in which it could be defined.
Then think of arguments by which you might systematically rebutt each of
the cases. What survives, the case that resists rebuttal in
this Darwinian selection among "multiple working cases,"
has a much better chance of being the stronger case than if you had simply
run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
- Try not to get overly attached to a idea just because
it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of a winning argument. Ask yourself
why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if
you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.
- Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some
measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better
able to defend it against generalised rebuttal. What is vague and qualitative
is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in
the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them
is more challenging.
- If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain
must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them.
- Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us
when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose
the simpler.
- Always ask whether the case can be, at least in
principle, falsified. Propositions that are unfalsifiable are called "truisms" and are not in the spirit of
debating. You run a good chance of losing a debate, especially if the opposition correctly identifies that your arguments cannot be rebutted.
Resources Last updated: Wednesday, 18 February 1998 at 7:44am Copyright 2002 Wayne McDougall.
ADA, PO Box 3233, Auckland Central, New Zealand Ph +64-9-6252847 Fax +64-9-6252851 Mobile +64-21-962783 Email to president@ada.org.nz
[Next]
Logical Fallacies | [Start] of this document | [Feedback]