How to have better arguments

Arguing well isn’t just about winning. A philosophical approach will help
you and the other person get much more out of it
by Scott Aikin & John Casey

Need to know

Arguing is hard. Chances are good that you are reading this because
you’ve had an argument that went off the rails. Maybe the other person
trotted out an anecdote as definitive proof of some general claim, or they
misrepresented your reasons in order to make you look foolish, or they
called you nasty names, or did any of the other too-many-to-name things
that people who argue tend to do. These experiences are partly why
people view argument as hostile and intellectually unproductive –
something to be avoided.

Perhaps you are looking to learn some new terms to describe the
annoying moves people make, or maybe you’re looking for ‘one weird
trick’ to ‘own’ others with facts and logic. Well, we have some good news
and bad news. Fancy terms, we’ve got a few, but our focus in this Guide
is primarily on how to think about what is truly at stake in arguing, why
it goes awry, and how to get it back on track. To our minds, the key to
arguing better consists not in learning new tricks, but in recognising how
arguments work and why they are important.

Arguments and the problems they pose

Let’s first get a handle on argument. To start, we need to differentiate

between an argument as a product and argument as a process. As
a product, an argument is a collection of reasons (called the premises) and
the thing that the reasons show (called the conclusion). So, for example,
the utterance ‘Bring your jacket because it’s going to rain’ is an argument
in this sense. So is ‘God exists because the world needs a first cause, and
God is the first cause.’ In contrast, as a process, an argument is an
exchange of reasons between interlocutors. Two people exchanging
reasons over jackets or God’s existence is an argument in process. From
our perspective, the rules for a better argument process are ultimately
derived from the rules for good argument products. This is because, in the
end, what people who argue are wrangling over is what conclusion
everyone’s best reasons jointly support.

What are arguments for? This is deceptively easy: we exchange reasons

with others in order to affect their beliefs or commitments. I give you
reasons to believe that something is true because I want you to believe
that it’s true, or to believe more strongly. Maybe we disagree about it,
maybe we don’t. Either way, I give you my reasons. And you weigh them.
People do this so often, and about so many things, that they rarely note
it. ‘Bring your jacket,’ one might say, ‘because it’s going to rain.’ This is
an argument, a mundane one, but it’s worth noting that it’s out for
belief-change and then actions in accord with that belief.

We disagree, and so argue, over things both big and small. Many of these
disagreements pose a problem for how to go forward, in light of the
differing views. Let’s say you and a random Twitter user, let’s call him
HockeyDad1989, disagree over abortion. On his view, abortion ought to
be illegal in all circumstances; on your view, it ought to be legally
permitted in most cases. Clearly the answer to this question matters
greatly to whether people can have abortions. It’s not like a dispute over
whether it’s OK to put ketchup on a hot dog (don’t do this in Chicago, by
the way) – it must be settled. Sure, we could settle it by any number of
methods, like rolling dice, examining entrails, or (God forbid) trial by
combat, but reasoning it out together offers the highest chances at
arriving at the best answer and improving everyone’s cognitive standing.
Under ideal conditions, HockeyDad1989 offers his reasons, and you offer
yours. And then you, together, see where those reasons go. But it’s here
that we get into trouble.

The primary problem is tied to the very nature of the thing that
argument is intended to affect: belief. It’s manifestly obvious that you
think your beliefs are true, just as other people think their own
beliefs are true. This is what makes them beliefs rather than hopes,
desires or fears. This starting point can make it difficult to even
contemplate the possibility that someone else’s opposing belief is
correct.

Another important feature of beliefs is that we lack direct, voluntary

control over them. You cannot simply will yourself to change what you
believe. No amount of money is going to make you genuinely believe that
the Pope is Buddhist or that 2 + 2 = 5. What can change your beliefs is
exposure to information and reasons. Yet people tend to gravitate to
sources that support their existing beliefs and selectively attend to
evidence that confirms those beliefs. Much of this we do without
noticing. Incentives, financial or otherwise, can play a role in this. As
Upton Sinclair, author of the novel The Jungle (1906), quipped: ‘It is
difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it.’ The existence of these belief-preserving
tendencies underscores the importance of argument: to continue to work
for the evil meatpacking company in Sinclair’s novel, one must carefully
avoid exposure to evidence or arguments that might weigh upon one’s
beliefs. Argument threatens to burst that bubble.

The potential for belief change, then, is all in the arguments that people
do or do not encounter. But it’s hard to see the evidence for something
you consider false as evidence at all. Disagreement prompts argument,
but it also makes argument very hard to put into motion.

Our aim with this Guide is to help you think through how to approach
arguments so that you can have more productive ones, ones where you
and your argument partner understand the stakes and are both willing to
follow the reasons where they lead. Rather than lumbering through the
technical language of epistemology or exhaustively cataloguing every
kind of fallacy – though those are the kinds of things we examine in our
research and cover in our classes on epistemology, logic and critical
reasoning – we’ll be exploring some general and often overlooked
aspects of argumentation. Hopefully, this will inspire you to view
arguments from a new perspective and, when the time comes, to argue
better.

Think it through

Decide whether arguing is worth it, case by case

We’ve said that the nature of argument is that you and another person
are trying to change each other’s minds. Now of course, there is always
the possibility that the other person in the exchange is not really
interested in reasoning with you, but is really just out to intimidate you
or lure you into a position where your honesty can be used against you
for the benefit of an audience friendly to their views. Arguing can
backfire when it ends in heightened aggression, misunderstanding, or a
doubling down on bad reasoning. We don’t have much advice here for
arguing with trolls or people who aren’t sincere about their
commitments; little genuine progress can be made with them, so it’s
probably best to just avoid them. But we do have some advice on how to
determine when arguing is worthwhile.

As a rule of thumb, we find an analogy to just war theory useful.

Consider engaging in argument when the following conditions apply: (1)
you are reasonably well prepared to participate; (2) there is a reasonable
chance of success in terms of having a good argument exchange (even if
it’s not necessarily a ‘victorious’ one); and (3) you will not make the
situation worse. It’s easy to think of cases where argument isn’t
advisable. If you start arguing politics with a drunk uncle over a holiday
dinner, you’re not only unlikely to be heard, but it will probably ruin the
meal, and then you might not get invited back to spend time with your
cousins. Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to engage with internet trolls
because the chances of success are very low and there’s a likelihood of
making it all worse.

However, we have had some great arguments with people at dinner, over
coffee or beers, and even, if you can believe it, at philosophy conferences.
The best arguments we’ve had are not ones that had a cinematic payoff, a
gladiatorial thumbs up or down, but rather those in which an
incremental epiphany shined a light on something we couldn’t see
previously. In these cases, the real victory is that someone recognises
evidence as evidence, and is then in a position to let it do its work.

Approach argument with humility

A vexing problem of argument and reasoning is that everyone thinks

they’re quite good at it (including the ones who are not). Charles Sanders
Peirce, the great American philosopher and logician, noticed this and
observed in 1877: ‘Few persons care to study logic, because everybody
conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already.’

But, you might be wondering, don’t lots of people care about logic? It is
true that people care, but they tend to do so in a peculiar way: they care
about logic for others. Again, our own beliefs appear correct to us
because the nature of having a belief means thinking that it’s true. And
the same goes for the reasoning. Thinking that a belief is true means
thinking that you have good reasons for it, since they took you to this
true belief. So, you must think that you’re already good at logic. This is
what, in our book Straw Man Arguments (2022), we call the Peirce
problem: how can you detect your own errors of reasoning if you are
already inclined to think your reasons are good?

There’s an important lesson in the Peirce problem. Not only do people

have an innate bias toward the things they believe, they have a tendency
to congratulate themselves for their successful management of the
evidence in arriving at those beliefs (and to disparage others for their
failures in this regard). But openly engaging in the process of arguing
one-to-one with others – subjecting yourself to their reasons – can help
you get around your own logical blind spots.

Anticipate that arguments will feel like attacks

An attempt by someone to change your beliefs will often feel like an

attack or an imposition, especially when the belief in question is
important to you. One reason for this is that the other person is
suggesting – and they can’t but suggest this – that you have somehow
failed in your duties as a reasoner in concluding what you do. The beliefs
you hold have implications about you and your capacities to manage
evidence. To believe the ‘wrong’ thing can thus seem like being a
particular kind of failure. Hearing reasons in an argument is also a kind
of imposition in that you can’t perfectly control the evidence that you
receive (which can be uncomfortable when that evidence challenges your
beliefs).

It’s perhaps a bit of an understatement when your doctor tells you,

before sticking you with something, that you’re going to feel a little
pressure. In a similar vein, the challenge and change your beliefs might
undergo in argument doesn’t always feel good. It’s not supposed to.
You’re going to feel a little pressure. But you can anticipate and try to
accept this discomfort, knowing that the experience could ultimately be
good for you – and that the person whom you’re arguing with, and whose
beliefs you seek to change, might be uncomfortable too.

The frequent comparisons of argument to sports or combat are true in

some critical respects. Like war, argument can concern the settling of
things that are important. And, as in war, in argument people are
affected against their will. However, the point of arguing is to get
someone to believe something – and to do that, you have to offer them
reasons. If you want someone out of your way in a contact sport, you
push them. If you want someone to go your way by argument, you can’t
just make them (demand is not a reason). You have to offer them reasons
such that they move in that direction on their own – or, more precisely,
that it occurs to them to go that way. That’s what it is to change
someone’s mind.

In attempting to get you to accept that it is going to rain later, I have to

direct your attention to things that will provoke that thought, like the
dark, looming clouds, or the weather app on my phone. Similarly, if you
want HockeyDad1989 to change his view about abortion rights, you have
to point him to evidence against his view. And if you want to be
successful in this, you must point him to evidence that he already accepts
or will accept as evidence. Those who disagree with you will try to do the
same with you.

Seek to understand the alternative view in addition to your

own

To give an argument that is convincing and that gets to the truth, you
must do your best to figure things out about the subject of your
argument. We’re all familiar with the barstool know-it-all for whom
ignorance of a topic is no barrier to having a view on it. Don’t be that
person. This requires that you know your view and the reasons for it, and
that you also understand the competing views, the reasons for them, and
the potential points of disagreement with your view.

One path to having a firm grasp on your own view and your reasons for it
is to take on the perspective of being a teacher. What’s the core idea?
What makes it a worthwhile idea? A good arguer is like a good teacher. A
good teacher explains clearly, motivates interest, and gets recalcitrant
audiences to see the point. This takes patience and a willingness to speak
to people where they are. And the key with teaching a big idea is to show
how it fits with other things, how it helps to explain why things are as
they are and makes life less puzzling.

When you’ve got a handle on your own view, it’s important to try to
understand those who have rejected it. A good arguer has to speak to and
be heard by those with whom they disagree. This requires that they know
the alternative views in the ways that those who hold those alternative
views know them.

When the topic is one on which groups are aligned against each other,
avoid relying solely on your allies’ accounts to help you understand your
intellectual opponents. Those stories are all too simple, because they
mainly focus on the apparent falsity or rationalisations of opponents’
views. Besides, some recent research suggests that people are bad at
estimating the prevalence of specific views across the political divide; we
tend to overestimate the frequency of extreme and irrational beliefs
among those with whom we disagree. This makes us less likely to engage
in the first place.

If you are going to argue with someone, you have to see them as rational
to some degree; otherwise, argument can’t reach them. And if they are
rational, they don’t see themselves as loving falsehoods or rationalising.
You have to try to understand them on their own terms if you are going
to give reasons that they see as reasons. From his point of view,
HockeyDad1989 might see abortion restrictions as the logical conclusion
of his constitutional originalism. If you can articulate reasons why that
theory actually doesn’t justify abortion restrictions, those reasons may
resonate with him. Conversely, suggesting that his opinion is wrong
because it stems from an unquestioned conservative upbringing is not a
reason that he would recognise.

It can help to expose yourself to how someone sees their own reasons.
This could mean reading their websites, watching their news shows or
TikToks, listening to their podcasts. It most certainly means listening
patiently to someone as they describe their view before you engage them.
You don’t have to like it, but exposure to alternative perspectives can
educate you on how people who disagree with you reason with each
other. After you’ve started to ‘learn their language’, there will likely be
strange and occasional moments when you seem to better understand
how they understand themselves. You can see one or more of the reasons
for their view as a good reason – that is, you can see how a careful
thinker might arrive at that conclusion – even if it hasn’t changed your
view. Pay attention to those moments. Being able to say that good reason
back to someone you are arguing with as something that you have heard
and thought about critically is valuable when you are trying to present
them with reasons of your own.

To argue effectively for your viewpoint, you will have to give someone
reasons that both of you see as reasons. Otherwise, you are not
addressing your interlocutor’s reasons, only your own. And you won’t
have any chance of resolving the disagreement.

Be prepared to argue about arguing

Argument is often maddeningly indirect. Say you’re trying to make a

point about mass shootings in the United States, and you point to
research showing that most public shootings do not end when a ‘good
guy’ with a gun takes matters into their own hands. Let’s say the person
you’re speaking with rejects this by advancing an anecdote about a
recent mass shooting where an armed citizen killed the shooter. True
though this story may be, you’ll have to explain that single anecdotes
aren’t strong evidence. They are interesting cases, but not necessarily
reflective of broader trends. Notice that now the conversation has turned
into one about what good arguments are, rather than about mass
shootings.

Some ‘rules of the road’ for arguing can help you navigate these
discussions and avoid making weak arguments yourself. For example,
when one gives reasons as part of an argument, those reasons should be
relevant to one’s conclusion. If they aren’t, that argument is a non
sequitur; the conclusion does not follow. An argument should also be
reflective of all the relevant reasons available – that is, one shouldn’t
ignore a well-known reason for an opponent’s viewpoint, but should
acknowledge and address it.

There are also, of course, fallacies to avoid – bad types of arguments

that, in the heat of the moment, might seem like good ones. For example:
arguing that because somebody has personal flaws or shortcomings, they
are wrong about an issue (ad hominem); giving reasons that seem good
only to someone who already accepts your conclusion (‘begging the
question’); or describing an exaggerated version of an opponent’s view
(creating a ‘straw man’) and then criticising that exaggerated view
instead of the person’s actual view. These concepts can serve as
interpretive devices for criticising flawed arguments and can also keep
you from falling for them.
The key here is that, for this vocabulary of fallacies to play the re-railing
role it’s supposed to play, you can’t just use the terms and expect them to
work like magic incantations on your opponents. Pronouncing a
criticism of your view an ad hominem or a straw man isn’t enough.
You’ve got to explain what the error is and why these terms fit the case.
So, with the ad hominem, you have to show how your opponent’s
comments on someone’s looks don’t invalidate that person’s take on
public policy. And with the straw man, you have to explain that you
actually said that ‘taxation is a down payment on civilisation’, not that
libertarians are uncivilised.

The indirectness of argument is a perpetual source of frustration for

arguers. But this is just what it is to engage in argument – we don’t just
talk about the item at issue, we have to talk about how we are talking
about it. Things get complicated, because we, in managing the
disagreement, have to work out lots of things adjacent to the
disagreement on which we can agree. Such meta-discussions, as we call
them in the business, make us aware of the rules of the road.

Aim to argue justly

Consider this analogy: certain actions are prohibited in war (eg,

indiscriminately targeting civilians), and the same should be true in
argument. An unjust victory in argument – in which one ostensibly
‘wins’ the argument with distortion or deception, or by otherwise arguing
unfairly – is not really a victory at all. Not only will you have triumphed
with bad reasons, you will have harmed your interlocutor by degrading
their reasoning power. In turn, you hurt yourself: it’s in your interest to
lose arguments when you deserve to. Losing spares you from error –
whether it be your false belief or your mistaken sense that your argument
would be convincing to others. Either way, you’ve learned a lesson. It’s
for this reason that Epicurus averred that ‘the one who loses in a
philosophical dispute gains more the more he learns’.

Like war, argument doesn’t last forever. It’s going to end, and you may
have to continue interacting with your interlocutor. Not only do you not
want them to feel degraded, you want to maintain a relationship of trust
and mutual respect. Looking to ‘own’ someone in argument has the
wrong orientation, that of domination not only during the exchange but
afterwards. Instead, we should approach our particular and individual
exchanges with the hope that we can set the stage for a more respectful
and honest culture of reasoning together. For sure, this is but a hope, but
it’s better to serve as an example of that aspiration than as an example of
how argument can go wrong.
Key points – How to have better arguments
 1. The need for argument is unavoidable. Hostile or
unproductive exchanges can make arguing seem hopeless. But it’s
vital because it holds the potential to answer important questions
and change beliefs.
2. Arguing is inherently complicated. The very nature of belief
and the selective ways we regard evidence can make it challenging
to approach arguments with an open mind.
3. Decide whether arguing is worth it, case by case. Consider
engaging in argument with someone if you are reasonably well
prepared and it seems likely that you will hear each other out.
4. Approach argument with humility. Remember that everyone
tends to think that their own beliefs, and the reasons for them, are
correct. Be ready to hear someone else’s reasons.
5. Anticipate that arguments will feel like attacks. Being
argued with can feel as if someone is saying you’ve failed at
reasoning. Try to accept the discomfort that arises, knowing that
the experience could be worth it.
6. Seek to understand the alternative view in addition to
your own. To argue well, you’ll have to give reasons that the other
person sees as good reasons. So, explore how they think about the
issues at hand.
7. Be prepared to argue about arguing. You may have to point
out when there is an error in someone’s argument – and clearly
explain why that’s the case.
8. Aim to argue justly. ‘Owning’ someone with unfair tactics or bad
reasoning is hardly a victory, and ‘losing’ a fair argument has its
benefits.

Why it matters

The moral weight of argument

For philosophers like ourselves, argument is usually considered a topic

in epistemology, the study of knowledge, wherein good arguments are
ones that make for knowledge and bad ones for ignorance. But, given the
stakes of arguing, there is a need to think of arguments from an ethical
perspective as well.

Ibn Rushd, a 12th-century Islamic philosopher, maintained that arguers

are responsible for the effects of their arguments on the beliefs of their
audience. Though his point was a theological one about generating
unbelief among followers of Islam, he offers a surprisingly apt parable of
a person who sows unfounded doubts about medical experts among
people who are not able to see through such sophistries, and who then all
die as a result. To update this parable a bit, Ibn Rushd’s rule would also
apply to the person who shares memes on social media suggesting
that COVID-19 is a hoax or that you can cure it if you gargle with lemon
juice. From this perspective, such a person is as morally culpable as one
who openly lies. Arguing in favour of a falsehood can even be seen as
immoral in cases where there is already general agreement, for
prolonging someone’s mistaken belief is akin to converting them to
a false one.

As speakers in an argument, we risk doing damage to others; as an

audience, we risk being hurt. The need to learn to argue better is
unavoidable. This consists, in part, of recognising how beliefs come upon
us: Ibn Rushd reminds us that people acquire beliefs involuntarily, and
are in danger of falling into error without realising it. So arguers need to
acknowledge their responsibility for how they influence others.

W K Clifford, another philosopher noted for his attention to the ethics of

belief, observed in 1877 that none of our beliefs are an island; being lazy
about just one of them – failing to seek out evidence related to a belief
you have doubts about – will corrupt one’s whole belief system. An
antidote to this is to seek out the critical input of others. Again, it’s not
up to us to change what we believe directly. For that, we need evidence.
And a great source of evidence is argument.

In trying to figure out what is true about the world, we’re cognitively
dependent on the work of others, and argument is how we divide up this
labour and aggregate it. Argument is an adversarial interaction but,
when done right, it’s also a form of cooperation.

[Link]
fbclid=IwAR3BFkw3H1rlVO4RqND3T9XUsBZis2Mi2o3VFxo5KFe2NngFMX80SunewTo