If your argument is full of “I” statements, your opponent may ask why people should trust your opinion. To avoid having to defend yourself in this way, keep the argument from being about you. This doesn’t mean you need to completely avoid examples or evidence that could cause other people to become emotional. For example, you might want to tell a story about a child affected by toxic drinking water if you’re arguing for better water pipes in your city. Pair this moral example with statistics, historical examples, and other evidence.
For an example of an argument that uses complex language: “Implementing universal online voter registration and voting might, all things being equal, stimulate voter interest, ameliorate the current bureaucratic morass, and revitalize American democratic processes. ” The same argument presented in simpler terms: “Allowing Americans to register and vote online would make voting easier. This would hopefully encourage more people to vote. It would also cut down on unnecessary paperwork. ” To decide whether you’re using concepts or language that’s too complex, ask yourself whether a 10-year-old could understand your argument. If the answer is yes, then your audience will follow your logic, as well.
Even if you can’t make a written outline of your argument ahead of time, you can still take a minute to organize your case. Silently plan in your head for a minute or so, then begin arguing.
Before you come to a decision about a particular issue, look up arguments from both sides. Stay informed by reading the news each day and looking up sources from multiple news outlets.
To keep your debate ethical and fair from start to finish, don’t make emotional or personal counter-arguments. If your opponent says something like, “Half the country experienced colder winters last year! Climate change isn’t real. ” You could counter with: “Climate change doesn’t mean that cold weather won’t happen anymore. Right now, the world is experiencing a general warming, which could actually cause more variation in weather patterns from year to year. ”[5] X Trustworthy Source NASA Independent agency of the U. S. government in charge of the aerospace research and the space program Go to source Don’t respond with a counter like: “How can you assume that just because it’s snowing in Indiana, climate change isn’t real?” This argument attacks your opponent’s intelligence and doesn’t advance your case.
A post hoc fallacy. This is when someone misattributed effects to particular causes. For example, if you’re debating the value of social welfare programs, your opponent could say something like: “When Congress cut welfare spending, unemployment went down and more people got jobs. Welfare spending therefore causes people not to look for jobs. ” Since there are lots of reasons (not just one) why unemployment could go up or down at any given time, this argument isn’t logical. A non sequitur. This happens when someone makes a conclusion that’s related to a certain premise, but the premise doesn’t actually support the conclusion. For example, if you’re debating school lunch menus, your opponent might say: “children really like pizza. Therefore, pizza should be the main lunch food served in public schools. ” This is an illogical argument because while it’s true that most children enjoy pizza, it’s not the healthiest lunch food option. [6] X Research source Generalizations based on stereotyping are also common illogical arguments. Be wary if your opponent makes a statement about a whole group of people (“all women,” “poor people,” “inner-city youth”). [7] X Research source
For example, if you’re arguing about climate change, start by Googling simply “climate change. ” You can then do more in-depth online searches by typing phrases like: “debates over climate change” or “scientific studies on climate change. ”
When doing online research, this is even harder! Look for . gov, . edu, and . org sites. Even with these sites, double-check your information and look up authors. Be especially wary of online sites that have spelling or grammar mistakes.
If you’re trying to argue for the effectiveness of gun control laws, for example, you might look up worldwide statistics about gun-related deaths before and after gun control legislation was passed. When you’re looking up statistical studies, make sure the study was conducted impartially and effectively. Generally, university and government studies are more reliable than those produced by private organizations. Find out if an organization paid for a statistical study (even if it’s a government or university study) before you cite it! Private funding could cause the results to be biased. Statistics can be manipulated in the hands of savvy or tricky opponents. If your opponent cites statistics, listen very carefully for the sponsors of the study they’re referring to, the date and length of the study, the accuracy of their numbers, and the relationship of the stats to your argument.
For example, if you’re arguing about civil rights protections for LGBTQ folks, you might want to provide some historical background on civil rights struggles and advances for other groups of people around the world. Find out which laws were passed when, why they were passed, and if they’ve made a difference in expanding civil rights. To look up historical examples, start with credible sources online and then look for more details in book-length studies at the library.
In debate, a “fact” is considered something that’s indisputable, like 2+2=4. Choose experts who have spent years studying and doing research on the topic you’re arguing about. It’s best if their work isn’t privately funded.
When was this source written or produced? What was happening in the world at that time that could have affected the author and their interpretation(s)? What’s the major implication of the study’s conclusion(s)? Is that implication controversial? What kind of language does the source use? Is it exaggerated or biased? Is there an obvious part of the story that the source has left out?
Ask yourself why your opponent is passionate about this topic. What values or belief systems could be motivating them to argue against your point? Did something happen to them in their past that solidified their viewpoint? Even if you don’t agree with those motivations, you can respect them.
For example, you wouldn’t want to say something like “that scientist is a horrible person! Why would you use him as your expert witness?”
Arguing to win and arguing to prove you’ve got the better case are subtly different! When you’re focused on the strength of your position instead of winning or losing, you’ll act more like a teacher giving a reasoned lecture than a general fighting a war. A win-lose mindset will also be more likely to inspire strong emotions like anger, resentment, or frustration.
This should act like a “reset button,” and you can then continue arguing with renewed courtesy.
As you breathe in, silently remind yourself that this isn’t personal. You’re arguing to show the merits of your case, not to tear someone down or hurt them.
Arguments where people are shouting or screaming at each other also aren’t useful. Don’t reply with an immediate, knee-jerk reaction. It’s okay to get back to the person later. [18] X Expert Source Maureen TaylorCommunications Coach Expert Interview. 6 March 2019.
