Can one have a productive discussion when countering arguments?

 

You can, but it takes planning, nuance, and patience.

When offering countering arguments, or even providing original arguments, you have to pay attention to what the ancient philosopher Aristotle called, “The Rhetoric”. This comes down to about three issues, what he calls logos (logical reasoning), ethos (character), and pathos (emotion). One must pay careful attention to all three under any conditions are argumentation, but especially when giving productive counter arguments to what your interlocutor (apparently) already believes. Thus, notice there’s already psychological issues here, not just the ones of purely logical reasoning. Indeed, Aristotle recommends we even attend to the social contexts, such as whether we are in a political, legal, or ceremonial context. How you argue in a public debate for office is quite different than how you argue with your buddies in a bar, or at a church potluck.

On the emotional issue, Aristotle gave, as an example, using anger to motivate people when giving political speeches. People are highly motivated by hearing of injustices and indignities. (Incidentally, this is why bad news attracts viewers in mass media and why bad news is easily monetized.) Indeed, Aristotle would say that a thorough understanding of every emotion will help the speaker to excite the desired disposition in his listeners. You want them to be open to at least considering your counterargument, even before assessing it. Also regarding emotion, Aristotle describes how age and fortune (as in luck) can affect the characters of people who are considering your arguments. Knowing all this, a speaker can adjust the rhetorical style to appeal most to one’s target demographic. It also lets you portray how you want your audience to perceive you — intellectual, populist, down-home, etc.

Then there is the the Logic side of things. Here Aristotle advises you give real life and/or historical examples, since those are more relevant and useful for persuasion than just making-up thought experiments. He actually thinks real-life examples work better than logical proofs, since they seem to work at the intuitive level; it’s hard to deny what is actually noted to have already happened! There there’s what he calls the “enthymeme” approach, which is a type of simple argument, usually with only one explicit premise and then a conclusion. These are easy to construct — typically two sentences — and are minimally dependent on external factors beyond understanding the argument itself. As it turns out, there are a whole battery of such compact types of arguments (called ‘topoi’) which can help the speaker to construct such enthymemes. Aristotle also identifies fallacious types of arguments to avoid which lead to faulty conclusions. You certainly want to be aware of those so as to a) avoid them in your own arguments, and b) identify them in your opponent’s arguments.

Finally, there’s the whole matter of style. Here Aristotle advises using such things as natural-sounding language, good diction, and simple and elegant (i.e. appropriate) language, being not so overwrought that it sounds too flowery or too much like simple BS. Again, even what national language you use matters. For example, how people from England debate is far different from how people in, say, Iraq debate. So too does order of presentation matter here. Aristotle recommends having a clear introduction, a planned narrative, a prepared argument, and a summary conclusion. Naturally, much depends on the social context, as noted above. You don’t jump up at the family Thanksgiving dinner and start out with “Good people of Boise, hear my plea and heed my words!” Nuance, please — and use a bit of planning and patience when deciding how to make your counterarguments.

O.