A Good Argument

As an undergraduate, I took a rhetoric course, which to this day I consider to be the best course I ever enrolled in and only closely matched by an eminently useful graduate school writing course called Strategic Communications. Both courses featured excellent instructors. The rhetoric course offered me the opportunity to write a two-page argument every week during the 14-week semester while practicing a variety of forms of expository writing: procedure, cause and effect, extended definition, contrast/comparison, persuasion, description, narration, classification, and analysis to name a few. Many of these forms are used as the framework to build a persuasive argument, which can range along a purpose continuum from a writer merely trying to persuade the reader to read the writer’s thoughts to one trying to reasonably persuade the reader to agree with a contentious point of view or controversial policy.

 

So what makes for a good argument? Most teachers and textbooks would offer the following: a sound thesis, supported by specific, credible evidence, and organized effectively to reinforce the reader’s understanding of the writer’s points. The introduction needs to draw the reader in and set the table for the argument to follow. The supporting evidence should be detailed, plausible, and built to compel the reader to agree with the writer’s argument as presented. The conclusion must restate the thesis and basically tell the reader what to think based on the sound argument presented.

 

In the process of crafting one’s argument, a writer/speaker may make use of several valid rhetorical appeals; according to Aristotle these are logos (appeal to logic), ethos (an appeal to ethics), and pathos (an appeal to emotion). The best arguments rely most heavily on an appeal to logic but the others can bring weight to one’s argument as well if used effectively. Note, however, that it may not be entirely convincing to lean too far into an appeal to emotion; this may play well when used by our favorite TV and movie lawyers, but that’s for entertainment purposes and not for life-impacting, weighty topics.

 

Too often these days, we argue amongst ourselves in ways that are neither compelling nor valid, and we seem to think that being vociferous, righteous, and adamant—sans reasonable evidence—somehow is a valid appeal to share our perspectives (and I must admit that I have my moments, so I am not omitting myself here). In the public domain, we have veered away from skilled, legitimate persuasion and instead too often track to artifice, sophistry, and logical fallacies that are superficial, simplistic constructions aimed at winning the argument and not at determining the truth. We also make use of far too many emotion-tugging, over-the-top, ad populum appeals to buttress our points of view, particularly in the political sphere in support of, for example, patriotism, liberalism, conservatism, etc., or in opposition to socialism, agnosticism, or terrorism. These appeals take the focus away from any real issue to be argued, say whether or not government should provide increased economic support for child care or for improved, community-based law enforcement.

 

According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one using the ad populum fallacy to support an argument provides an airy, emotional touchstone:  “…the source appealed to is popular opinion, or common knowledge, rather than a specified authority…Often in arguments like this the premises aren’t true, but even if they are generally true, they may provide only scant support for their conclusions because that something is widely practiced or believed is not compelling evidence that it is true or that it should be done. There are few subjects on which the general public can be said to hold authoritative opinions. Another version of the ad populum fallacy is known as ‘playing to the gallery’ in which a speaker seeks acceptance for his view by arousing relevant prejudices and emotions in his audience in lieu of presenting it with good evidence.” (Hansen, Hans, "Fallacies", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

 

Bad evidence in the form of logical fallacy is often offered in another form as well in the use of the ad hominem argument, which is basically just a personal attack in lieu of any real attempt to offer a reasoned perspective. Such an attack can include a variety of approaches to a supporter of an opposing viewpoint including a mal-intended critique of character, ethnicity, gender, intelligence, skill level, etc. For example, the use of this ad hominem statement, “She can’t possibly support this environmental de-regulation policy because she is a progressive and those people have radical ideas,” stands in opposition to, “She supports maintaining environmental oversight that is outdated and harmful to the growth of this particular industry. Let me provide a few examples.” This type of logical fallacy is frequently put to use by those seeking or already in political office here and abroad, but it is not limited to politicians, and it is not just one of two types of illogic and mis-direction one can encounter today.

 

A visit to the Logical Fallacies website offers a list of 45+ formal and informal fallacies that, unfortunately, get put to use in written and spoken form in debates, opinion pieces, sound bites, and speeches for our consideration in place of valid, logical arguments, perspectives, and positions. Many of these devices will be all too familiar, but focusing too much on them and too little on good argumentation can lead to quite a bit of cynicism and pessimism. So let’s refocus on sincere argument in the conclusion.

 

If one is looking for a genuinely offered argument, opinion or perspective, the site to visit is Brimmer and May’s award-winning, online student newspaper. The editors and writing  staff of The Gator frequently offer timely and thoughtful op-ed pieces and analyses that seek to provide reasoned arguments on a range of topics from sleep deprivation to book banning. These arguments are worth reading because they are founded in sincere interest, thoughtful reflection, and research, with the intent to persuade and illuminate the reader. The Gator provides an excellent opportunity for our students to learn how to write compelling arguments, to offer them to the school community and beyond, and to get some feedback and have a civil conversation about topics of importance to them and us. This is a valuable space in an otherwise unruly environment for making a good argument.