Arguing Rationally

I have always been a sucker for rational arguments but lately I have noticed that most of the people I reason with don’t understand the concept of arguing rationally. Here are a few key characteristics of a good argument:

1. Arguments must be logically valid: You cannot make a logically invalid argument. If you cannot deduce back to you conclusion based on your premises then you are not making a logically valid argument. Give yourself a few minutes to organize your thoughts before you start arguing.
2. Have a conclusion: More often than not people start off with a point but when then cannot substantiate their conclusions; they will listen to the opponent and try to find un-related flaws in their speech. This does make for a good argument. Have a coherent and conclusive argument and stick to the central point.
3. Present Facts not personal examples: It is quite common to derive from personal experiences and argue based on those derivations. This will not work well when discussing universal subjects because your personal experience might not be representative of the majority. So either get facts that indicate that your personal experience is in the majority or don’t base your argument on it.
4. Listen to your opponent: It is very important to listen to your opponent and give her/him due credit. The purpose of a good argument to share opinions and learn. Don’t demean others.
5. The loudest one is not necessarily the winner: This phenomenon is quite common is people who are aggressive and some how believe that the louder you are the better you are. More often than not these people lack coherent thought, refuse to listen to the other person’s view. Don’t argue with such people because it is a waste of time and energy. You cannot learn anything or impart any wisdom in these situations.
6. Begging the question: This fallacy, also known as circular reasoning, occurs when writers simply restate what they seek to prove as their conclusion. For example, one might say, “This test is hard because it is so difficult!” The reason offered, that it is very difficult, would certainly make the test hard, but this statement is circular because it does not address why the test is hard. In the editing process, arguers will likely benefit from persistently asking themselves, “But why is this true?” If one looks for support for this answer and merely find a restatement of it, then the reasoning is circular. At this point, it becomes necessary to either support the point or to make the point less sweeping and then support it.
7. Ad hominem: Another Latin name, this fallacy translates, “To the person.” In other words, to make an ad hominem argument is to attack a person rather than the person’s argument. The following is an example of this: “Sally says I should drive a more fuel efficient car, but her car gets even less mileage than mine; therefore, there is no reason for me to drive a more fuel efficient car.” The conclusion the argument makes is simply too strong: it is not entirely clear that Sally is being hypocritical (she may not be able to afford a more fuel efficient car, for example); and even if she is hypocritical, it is not clear why her hypocrisy makes it bad for the author of the argument to drive a more fuel efficient car.
8. Learn to Lose: This is probably the most difficult aspect to master. Know when you have logically been beaten and accept it. It is okay, well imperative that you lose as one cannot be right all the time. This is where arguments take a bad turn most of the time.

Rational and civil arguments are an important part of learning and try to use them effectively.

(Works Cited: Kahane, Howard and Cavender, Nancy. 1998. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. 8th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth and David Roberts, UR Writing Fellow)