An Argument for Argumentation

Based on recent global and domestic sociopolitical events, I've been noticing a lot of statements on social media that say something to the effect of "What we need right now is to be teaching people about X!" Where X is something like civics, politics, economics, ethics, constitutional law, civil rights, or other topic du jour that have become ubiquitous in the public forum. While I agree unreservedly that society would benefit from greater knowledge on all of the those topics, schools can only fit so much into their curricula, and many of us are no longer in school anyways. This means that much of what people learn about these topics falls on dialogue with their peers, often through social media.

Therefore, I argue that "what we need right now" is to be teaching people about argumentation. One can view argumentation is the process by which we share knowledge and determine the truth. A widespread increase in argumentation competency represents an increase in societal transfer of knowledge (i.e. better transmission of information), and in the quality of knowledge being shared (i.e. better information). If people can recognize weak or poor arguments when they see them, they may be less likely to spread or propagate that information.

An Overview of Argumentation

You might be wondering what I mean by argumentation. Herrick (1995) describes argumentation as "the ongoing, interactive process of advancing arguments." Well, what is an argument? Herrick defines an argument as "discourse characterized by a reason or reasons advanced to support a conclusion." In more plain language, one can view argumentation as an overarching conversation containing one or more arguments, where an argument is a unit of discussion that contains some kind of assertion, and other relevant information (points, counterpoints, evidence, etc.) to support or refute that assertion.

The word 'argument' likely has a negative connotation for many (e.g. argument with your spouse or coworker), and might be seen as synonymous with fighting. However, arguments are not, by definition, a hostile or negative event. In fact, they are fundamentally cooperative, in that participants use some type of literal or normative rules to achieve common outcomes. Simply put, arguments are not only a means to justify a position or persuade somebody, but also a means for collaborative discovery, inquiry, and learning.

There is a need for good argumentation. Not only in more formal settings such as courtrooms and analytic professions (e.g. intelligence analysis), but in our everyday lives. In addition to generally increasing the effectiveness of communications with others, assessing the veracity of information we consume through the lens of argumentation can also help identify baseless claims and make us more robust to mis/dis/malinformation (which is an increasingly growing problem).

How to Think About Arguments

There are various argumentative traditions, and there are even more numerous ways to represent or visualize arguments. Thinking through these various lenses may help us craft better arguments, and better scrutinize the arguments we consume.

Argumentation Traditions & Measures of Quality

There are at least three traditions of argumentation (Wenzel, 1990). Each of these high-level traditions have different perspectives on what constitutes a quality argument, and accordingly, are found being employed in different scenarios.

• Logical: Quality arguments in the logical tradition are marked by the soundness and acceptability of premises and their conclusions, and place less emphasis on how the audience perceives the argument. Logical argumentation is usually employed in fields such as law (e.g. trials) and intelligence analysis where the objective is to prove or disprove something based on available evidence.
• Rhetorical: Quality arguments in the rhetorical tradition are those that persuade the audience through what Aristotle referred to as appeals (Rife, 2010). Rhetorical argumentation is usually seen in marketing or advertising, where the objective is to appeal or persuade the audience, rather than determine the validity of assertion.
• Dialectical: The quality of an argument in the dialectical tradition is determined by its robustness towards counter-arguments. Dialectical argumentation is commonly found in debates, as well as education and other evaluative settings where the objective may be to assess reasoning and understanding (Nussbaum, 2011).

Modeling Arguments

As largely visual creatures, it is usually helpful to view arguments through the lens of models or diagrams. While there is no shortage of argument modeling, diagramming, or visualization techniques, at the simplest level, arguments can be modeled as collections of premises and conclusions (Weston, 2017). Before making an argument, we should first ask what it is we're trying to prove - what is the conclusion we'd like the audience to arrive at? The reasons we have for that conclusion are our premises. As shown below, we can use one or more premises to reach a conclusion (left). Additionally (shown right), premises and conclusions can be linked together into chains of reasoning, where a conclusion might be a premise for a further conclusion, in a series of argumentation (e.g. if A then B, if B then C, therefore, if A then C).

The Toulmin model is worth mentioning here, as it is the most well-known means to model or structure an argument. The Toulmin model suggests that a quality argument should have at least three components: A claim (the point you're trying to make), evidence (information to support that claim), and a warrant (a connection between the evidence and the claim) (Toulmin, 1958). It has been used to measure argument quality, where it is presumed that the more Toulmin elements present in an argument, the more logically sound the argument. It is mentioned here because of its general popularity; however, recent studies we've done have shown that use of the Toulmin model is ineffective for communication via social media, and actually reduced the rhetorical appeal of arguments (Dorton, Harper, Creed, & Banta, In press). As such, it's likely more helpful to simply think in terms of premises and conclusions for argumentation in our day-to-day conversations.

How to Make Good Arguments

Although the field of argumentation is as esoteric as it is vast, there are several simple ways we can generate better arguments in everyday discussions. These best practices can generally be placed into two different bins that I'll call Structural and Linguistic. Structural practices are those regarding the content and organization of information in an argument, while linguistic practices involve how we express or communicate the argument (whether it is verbal or written). In other words, we can increase the quality of not only the message itself, but also the quality of the means by which we transmit it.

Structural Best Practices: The most impactful (but most time-consuming) means to increase the quality of the argument is to focus on a sound structure. First and foremost, we should start with the objective in mind. Is the goal to prove something (logical)? Is it to persuade others of something (rhetorical)? Is it to counter an existing argument (dialectical)? By starting with the outcome in mind, we can identify what type of argument it will be, and therefore know what factors will affect its quality or "goodness."

As mentioned previously, a best practice is to start with the conclusion in mind, and build out the structure of the argument from there. The point we're trying to make is our conclusion, and the reasons we support that conclusion are our premises. As shown in the first figure (above), there are usually one or more premises for each conclusion. From here we should assess what evidence we have for our argument, then make sure that we are connecting that evidence to specific premises, strengthening the structure of our argument. Reservations, or acknowledgements of counterarguments, are also indicators of a strong argument (Herrick, 1995). While it may seem counterintuitive, including reservations shows that we've considered the viewpoints of others (and presumably their values and evidence), and are not being entirely dismissive of opposing arguments (remember, argumentation is a collaborative process).

Finally, we can strengthen our arguments at the structural level by adding parallel lines of reasoning (shown right, bottom). By having parallel lines of reasoning (rather than a single series of premises and conclusions, shown top), we can make our argument more robust to counterarguments, or weakness in evidence that might compromise any individual premise. Marvin Minsky referred to these structures as chains and bundles, where chains are series of premises and conclusions, while bundles are parallel sets of premises (1985). As shown below, we can have bundles of chains (left), or chains of bundles (right), where each bundle requires all of premises in the bundle to fail in order to break the chain of argumentation. This added robustness increases the quality of the argument in any tradition, although it is most helpful for logical and dialectical methods.

Linguistic Best Practices: There is no replacement for a well-structured argument; however, we can easily increase the quality of our arguments by being mindful of how we phase things. For example, being mindful of the use of qualifiers such as all/many/some/few/none will increase the validity and quality of an argument (Weston, 2017). Do all employees really hate Policy X? If you can think of a single person who does not hate it, then using "all" is hyperbolic at best, and disingenuous at worst. More generally speaking, scrubbing our arguments for emotional or hyperbolic language can also make our arguments better. As shown in a recent study (Dorton, 2020), regardless of the argumentative positions of individuals, the use of hyperbole was a reliable indicator of bias in news media.

How to Make Bad Arguments

Unfortunately, there are as many (if not more) ways to make bad arguments as there are to make good arguments. Besides not doing the good things mentioned in the previous section (duh), there are ways we can actively make bad arguments. The following is a brief overview of things to avoid in our own argumentation, and things to look for in others' argumentation to assess its quality.

Most everyone has been presented with a logical fallacy, and in truth, many of us have probably made them (intentionally and/or unintentionally). Fallacies are cheap tricks that are used to sway opinion without presenting evidence or refuting any premises (Paul & Elder, 2006). Using fallacies can be a sign of an argument with dubious merit, so we should avoid them wherever possible. While there are dozens of fallacies, the following are summaries of some of the most common ones we often see on social media (along with some generic examples):

• Ad Hominem: Attacking either the asserter of an argument, or the subject of an argument, rather than the argument itself. For example, if somebody asserts that a new musical is good, because your mutual friend Fred saw it and endorsed it, "Fred listens to death metal, so that musical he talked about is probably awful... what would he know?" Fred may be a fanatic of musical theater also- further, one could easily find critical reviews of the musical in question, rather than attacking the person/source of evidence.
• Slippery Slope: Asserting that if something occurs, a chain of other things may occur, without actually substantiating each link in that chain. For example, if somebody states that X should be legalized, "If we make X legal, we'll have to legalize Y, and Z and everything else, and that's the end of our country." If the argument is for legalizing X (and there is no mention of Y or Z), then the onus is on the dissenter to assert and provide evidence that Y and Z will logically follow - and that legalization of those three things will destroy the nation (a pretty serious claim, requiring pretty serious evidence).
• No True Scotsman: Using an impossible standard to meet a definition, thereby avoiding debate on argument entirely. For example, if somebody claims that John Doe, the local mayor, is a member of some unsavory ideology, "Mayor Doe can't be X, because you're only X if you say 'A' or if you participate openly in B and C." People can subscribe to all kinds of ideologies without exhibiting blatant, public-facing behaviors- creating an impossibly high standard for X is not a valid refutation of John Doe being X. Of course, the burden is on the original asserter to provide premises and evidence that back up the assertion about John Doe being X.

We can also create bad arguments by using bad evidence. In this context, bad evidence could be evidence of dubious veracity (a source that is not vetted, or generally unreliable), or relying on a single source for evidence. While an ad hominem attack on a source of evidence is considered dirty pool, a valid challenge on the veracity or credibility of evidence (and sources of evidence) is something that should be expected in nearly any argument. To that end, we don't want to put all of our eggs into one basket; this is why many news sources will aggregate polls- since each of them have their own biases and may not be trustworthy unto themselves. We can also make a bad argument by being dismissive, and failing to recognize and thoroughly refute counterarguments. Being dismissive not only creates brittle arguments, but also violates the collaborative spirit of argumentation.

A Dash of Cynicism

So if there are all these simple guidelines for better argumentation, why isn't everyone good at it? I don't claim to have all the answers to this, but can point to just a few reasons. First, there is no formulaic way for everyone to make good arguments. I've spent the last three years doing R&D of how to get large, online populations in a crowdsourcing system to engage in higher quality argumentation. Simply put, we can't just create argument formats and visualizations, and have people magically argue like seasoned attorneys (believe me, we tried). In fact, people seemed to respond poorly to such structured arguments (Dorton, et al, In Press).

Further, argumentation, like any tradecraft or skillset, takes time and experience to refine. Without training and/or continuous feedback, skills will not be honed. Like anything that requires hard work to achieve, people need to intrinsically desire to get better. For example, I'm not going to spend the time and effort to be better at singing, because I don't care about getting better, and it would take a lot of time and money. Other cultural issues such as anti-intellectualism, or what I jokingly call the "shut up, nerd" effect, appear to be on the rise, where people disregard well-made arguments in favor for things that reaffirm their personal beliefs. The current zeitgest seems to have amplified this effect, casting experts who make sound, evidence-based arguments as elitists who are out of touch with the public sphere (Nichols, 2014).

Finally, there are issues of economy. I find myself staying out of a lot of online debate simply because I don't have the time to do it well enough. As cheekily stated in Brandolini's Law, "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it" (Hartley, 2020). Simply put, it's easy to say something like 'windmills cause cancer' on social media, but it takes effort to provide a sound argument for why they don't (e.g. maybe comparing cancer rates of our Dutch friends to those of other nations with less windmills?). To call myself out, I would not invest the time to craft an argument and refute that claim, because it seems unnecessary and labor intensive. All of these issues, and others, make it easier said than done to promote sound argumentation at a societal level.

Conclusions

Argumentation is how we share knowledge, develop consensus, and identify common values with others. It is an antecedent or critical enabler for learning about anything. Also, detecting bad arguments can help us avoid succumbing to mis/dis/malinformation. This has effects on a variety of national security issues, including healthcare, economics, politics (domestic and foreign policy), etc. To that end, increasing awareness and competency of sound argumentation is of critical importance to not only public discourse, but to national security.

There are simple things we should do to increase the quality of our arguments, and unfortunately, simple things we can do to decrease the quality of our arguments. Further, it takes time and energy to develop skills in argumentation. To that end, one of the biggest challenges may be to convince people that it matters, and that they should want to craft better arguments in the first place.

References

Dorton, S.L., Harper, S.B., Creed, G.A. & Banta, H.G. (In press). Up for debate: Effects of formal structure on argumntation quality in a crowdsourcing platform. Proceedings of the 2021 Human Computer Interaction International (HCII) Conference.

Hartley, D. (2020). Brandolini's law: Why bullshooters outperform bull refuters. Psychology Today. Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/202008/brandolini-s-law-why-bullshooters-outperform-bull

Herrick, J.A. (1995). Argumentation: Understanding and Shaping Arguments. New York, NY: Pearson.

Minsky, M. (1985). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Nichols, T. (2014). The death of expertise. The Federalist. Retrieved from: https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

Nussbaum, E.M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.

Paul, R. & Elder, L (2006). The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation. The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Rife, M.C. (2010). Ethos, pathos, logos, kairos: Using a rhetorical heuristic to mediate digital survey recruitment strategies. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(3, 260-277.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: University Press.

Verheij, B. (2001). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. OSSA Conference Archive, 115, 1-17.

Wenzel, J.W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, pp. 9-26. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Weston, A. (2017). A Rulebook for Arguments: 5th Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett.