This post is divided into two parts. This is the first of the two. If you have already read this one, hop to the second.
Eventually, arguments happen. Arguments can be murky and unclear and messy; and so it might come as a surprise for some to learn the concepts—formally called argument and argumentation—have been studied in philosophy. Arguments and argumentation are linked, but are not quite the same. Simply put, argumentation is a kind of dialogue that involves coming up with reasons and communicating those reasons to establish a claim or position. An argument, on the hand, is a formal structure which has a set of premises—statements that form the argument’s basis—and a conclusion. Thus, we can say arguments are communicative artefacts used in argumentation. Argumentative practices are everywhere; they are the bread and butter of legal proceedings, politics, scientific enquiry, and everything in between.
Now, forget all that. Exchanging arguments is for everyone. It is the basic mechanism we use to filter the information we receive in order to increase our knowledge or improve on the accuracy thereof (when viewed as an epistemic practice). We must all learn how to do it well. Hence, our goal is to distill a few of the things known in these formal settings and apply it to everyday situations that provoke arguments. We can conceive everyday arguments in two different modes: reactive and proactive. Sometimes, we are presented with issues like debates between political opponents, disputes between married couples, disagreements among work colleagues, and spats between friends. Other times, we are the instigators; wanting to negotiate in the workplace, or influence others to adopt a new idea. Here, we will cover some things you should know about normal arguments, common pitfalls of reasoning and tips for arguing better.
Arguing is more than an argument.
For some, life is all about winning and others losing. But I believe it should be more than that. An argument (in the sense of the formal structure) is just a means to an end in the everyday exchange. In everyday situations, there is almost always a reason—a prejudice, belief, disposition, or plan—that motivates the act of arguing. So, if you place a lot of emphasis on a perfect argument, without care or consideration for those reasons, you will seem pedantic and argumentative. There are few situations where these descriptors are good. We will refer to these reasons as agendas, and these are not inherently good or bad. This change in terminology is to distinguish between this and the concept of reasoning about something (a notion closely related to arguments and argumentation). Agendas can taint the reasoning process, which may alter the position or claimed that gets established. The irony is people who often come off like this will probably have an agenda against the perceived agenda of the other party. In the end, there is no one-size-fits-all theory for arguing: some people argue to win (called adversarial argumentation), others argue to come to a consensus, which is ideally a win-win (referred to as cooperative argumentation). Sometimes, the nature of the discourse necessitates a winner-loser situation. Every argumentative exchange will have an agenda. Thus, these kinds of dialogue shouldn’t be divorced from the agendas that motivate them in the first place. The awareness of this will help you tailor how you argue to various situations.
To illustrate this, consider a hypothetical situation of two individuals contesting for a parliamentary seat in their constituency. Every interaction will be tainted by this agenda. Now, suppose that a local TV station calls them to have a debate on certain pertinent issues. It is not just which side of the issue they are on that will influence the discourse, but also their political ambitions aka agendas. So, even though an opponent’s argument may be sound logically, their purport will not allow them to cede any ground to the other side. We see this scenario play out in many other situations, wherever you may find yourself. This is, of course, a natural human trait. For good or bad, if you listen closely, it is always clear which is more important to people between their arguments and agendas. Extrapolating from this, there is often too much at stake for the arguer for the exchange to be “reduced” to a contest of who argues their point well. The lesson here is that, generally, a well argued exchange may not be enough to for someone to accept your claim or position. An appeal to the other party’s fear, empathy, desire, or hate could do wonders to achieve your desired outcome which, technically speaking, are all in a category of logical fallacies (more on this later).
Be aware of implicit assumptions.
Even if it is not stated, there is always an assumption. Though it may seem obvious, the awareness of this fact and what it means to us in this context is quite profound. When an argumentative dialogue is ensuing, some premises of the arguments may be assumptions. Other assumptions are more fundamental and might be a source of a non-discernible disconnect in an argument. Thus, it is always important to be aware of implicit assumptions from oneself that often arise from bias, privilege, worldview, and upbringing.
Consider the following scenario: suppose a woman reports to a respected elder that a wealthy man, who also happens to be a church leader in the community, has raped her. The elder without haste tells the lady her claims are untrue because she waited about a month to speak up, and that she is probably making this all up to get some kind of compensation from the man. Without any additional information, this damning judgment presupposes any number of statements, most of which are most likely rooted in patriarchal privilege. It fails to admit that the silencing of women’s voices historically has the effect that, in general, they are afraid to speak up when an injustice has been committed against them, especially by a rich and supposedly righteous man. These kinds of assumptions are deep-rooted and are well-supported by society. Thus, anyone who means well should be aware of them when arguing their point.
Logical fallacies are a thing.
Arguments are the communicative actions in an argumentative exchange. In such a dialogue, arguments are presented, and a reasoning process is used to establish a claim or position. You know when you sense that there is something wrong with someone’s logic for an argument, but you can’t quite place it? Someone may be peddling in logical fallacies. These types of arguments are misconceptions that result from flaws in reasoning, or a deliberate attempt to deceive to get a desired outcome. This is different from an argument that is inherently subjective or one that can be debunked with facts. As an example, the current Education Minister of Ghana (as of March 2023) had this to say about high levels of Ghanaian youth unemployment, according to YEN:
“So many students have enrolled in a diploma in education. They’re being trained for jobs that do not exist. Thousands and thousands are graduating for jobs that do not exist … I think we need to focus on courses that have relevance to that particular student and to the nation.”
This is an argument that can be disproven using facts and perhaps empirical research. Alternatively, if the minister had claimed that the thousands of graduates are unemployed because they spend so much of their time on social media, that would probably be a hasty generalisation which is a logical fallacy.
In the next post, we will dive into a few of the most common ones I am aware of that I see in discourses.
Let’s go further.
- Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopaedia article on argument and argumentation.