How To Have an Argument

This post is going to be a little bit different, but it’s something that I feel is incredibly important, and something I hope has the potential to benefit many researchers, across any discipline. For those unfamiliar with this blog, I will specify that my own discipline is musicology, but the points I’ll be making will apply across the board. The topic I’m discussing is the art of debate, and the most effective ways to form a solid, airtight argument. People arguing badly is something that frustrates me endlessly, and all too often I’ll see it coming – most disappointingly – from somebody that I agree with. Thus, there’ve been countless times in which I’ve ended up arguing against someone whom I actually believe to be right, but can’t get on board with due to the uselessness of their argument. Indeed, someone arguing the right point badly can often be more irritating than someone arguing the wrong point well.

The following then, comprises various pieces of advice that I’d give to anyone caught up in a scholarly debate. If you’re trying to convince someone of your position, you should be wary to avoid these common argumentative flaws.

The merit of an argument does not rest on one’s personal qualities

This should be the most obvious point, yet I’m constantly surprised by its prevalence amongst otherwise intelligent people. The most common example is the dismissal of a person’s opinion when regarding a matter that doesn’t affect them directly – as if the strength of their argument is reliant upon their membership of a certain group. The idea that the exact same argument could be more or less accurate depending on who it comes from is so illogical as to be preposterous. An argument is either a good argument or a bad argument. The source of the opinion is irrelevant.

Listen to your opponent and avoid strawmanning

Strawmanning is a particularly dishonest tool used – sometimes unknowingly – to gain the upper hand in a debate. In essence, it occurs when one appears to argue against their opponent’s position, when actually setting up a different point that they may take down – despite their opponent never making this point. This is an easy way of appearing right, but doesn’t solve anything. If you disagree with your opinions position, argue against that position, and that position alone. Really listen to what they’re saying, don’t misrepresent their position, and only argue against the parts that you actually disagree with.

Your enemy isn’t always wrong and your ally isn’t always right

This fallacy results from the instinctively tribalistic character of human nature, and is one that we all fall prey to. If we have already aligned ourselves with a particular person or group, we will naturally tend to agree with whatever point they subsequently make. Similarly, if we’ve already positioned ourselves as against someone in the past, we will often automatically dismiss them. The fact is, anyone is capable of making either good or bad points, and you should never avoid agreeing or disagreeing with a particular entity on the basis that it may be uncomfortable for you to be placed in such a standing.

Never rely on ad hominem attacks

An ad hominem attack is where one attacks their opponent directly, rather than attacking their actual argument. The most obvious (and disappointing) example of this comes with childish name-calling, which clearly does nothing to improve one’s argument, but it may take subtler forms too. Say your opponent is being hypocritical – would pointing out their hypocrisy make your own point any truer? No, of course it wouldn’t. Your opponent might be making the most ineffectual argument in the world, but if they’re right then they’re right. No amount of pointing out their own personal flaws will change this.

Be dispassionate

This might seem slightly counterintuitive at first, but there’s actually some serious reasoning behind it. The important point is that in making an argument you should seek to be as objective as possible, and that a passionate argument comes from a position of subjectivity. Of course you are likely to feel passionate about your cause, but the argument itself should rely only on logical and coherent points. And if nothing else, the more passionate you are in your debate, the more likely you are to fall victim to any of these other mistakes.

Solve the right problem

This is something that endlessly infuriates me – which is when someone presents an attempt at a solution to an issue, that simply moves the issue around without actually solving it. The perfect analogy is someone painting over a rotten wall. Whenever coming up with a suggestion for something that needs to be done, you must ensure that your solution is actually a solution – and not just a way of hiding the problem. Otherwise, at best you’ve changed nothing, and at worst you’ve made the issue worse.

Seek objective sources for evidence

I’m sure this is a familiar scenario to everyone: whilst caught up in a debate, your opponent assures you that what they are saying is fact, and then demonstrates this by showing you a random website which – lo and behold! – confirms everything they say as true. The truth is – you can find anything to support your position if you look only for what you wish to find. This is what’s known as confirmation bias, and the best way to avoid it is to always use reliable sources for evidence; and if employing the use of search engines – by only ever asking open-ended questions that don’t already imply a particular answer in the phrasing.

Never rely on arguments from authority

You may have noticed a bit of a running theme by now, which is the constant reminder that the strength of an argument relies only on the argument itself, and that the person making the argument is irrelevant. Any claim that “this is the position of x expert, and is therefore correct”, or that “I am the more knowledgeable in this area, so I know what I’m talking about” is inherently flawed. If one’s experience gives them superior knowledge, then that knowledge should be used to form the argument. It’s never enough to simply state that you know the correct information without actually doing anything to provide it.

There is always a place for nuance

It’s incredibly rare that someone will hold an opinion that can simply be dismissed outright. Whenever someone maintains a particular position, there will almost always be some kind of reason for them to do so, and you should always seek to understand the particularities of that position before rejecting the entire thing. As long as your opponent is at least attempting to use logic (so ignoring the few exceptions in which people genuinely believe complete and utter nonsense – flat earth; anti-vaccination; moon landing conspiracies; homeopathy etc.), any blanket rejection of an entire belief reveals nothing but wilful ignorance.

Don’t judge your opponent’s position from your own perspective

This may possibly be the most important point I raise here, and it’s something that we all do. The point is – we all have preconceived ideas, and we judge other opinions on the basis of those ideas. Thus, an action or a belief may be considered wrong on the basis of one person’s beliefs, but could be completely logical when considering it from a different person’s point of view. So it’s essential to take a step back whenever disagreeing with someone, and asking yourself if their position is entirely mistaken, or if it is only to be considered mistaken from your own, individual perspective.

Always be willing to concede a good point

And finally – there is absolutely no point in having a discussion of any kind with someone if you’re not going to be willing to admit when you’re wrong. You must be able to acknowledge when you’ve made a mistake, and be humble enough to accept that you’re not going to be right about everything. If you’re able to demonstrate enough respect to your opponent to accept when they are right, then hopefully they will extend the same courtesy to you. Otherwise, the whole exercise is essentially futile.

It’s a confusing world that we all live in, and the only way to make sense of it all is through thorough, reasoned, and respectful attempts at understanding one another. I also want to stress here that I don’t consider myself a perfect debater either, and I don’t want to come across as making all these points from a position of authority. I am occasionally guilty of many of these flaws myself, and it’s important for all of us to recognise how we can improve in the act of social discourse.

The final point I’ll raise – the most vital, yet frequently overlooked – is that the purpose of an argument is not to win. If your only aim is to defeat your opponent, then you are fundamentally missing the point. Rather, the purpose of an argument is to collectively arrive at the truth; and if you take close care to follow these bits of advice, you will be far more likely to emerge at the other end having done so.