An argument is a discussion or debate in which a number of people put forward different or

opposing opinions.
Definition

Argument is series of sentences, statements, propositions where some are the premises and
one is the conclusion and where the premises are intended to give a reason for the conclusion.

Visualization of the definition

There are two types of arguments

Deductive argument – It is an argument that is presented to be valid. Therefore, it cannot have a

false conclusion when it is possible that all of its premises are true.

Example: All humans have brain. I am human. So, I have brain.

Inductive arguments – It is an argument that strength comes in degrees. It is NOT supposed to

be valid. Inductive arguments are defeasible, which means they might be strong or weak, but
not true or false.

Types of inductive arguments – Statistical Generalizations, Causal Reasoning, Probability,

Inference to Best Explanation or Arguments from Analogy.

How to spot arguments? Argument markers

Arguments are made of language. As Aristotle stated many years ago, humans are the only
animals that can use the language complex enough to form arguments.

That is why we can spot arguments by observing the language that creates them. There are two
groups of argument markers.

Conclusion markers – “So”, ”Therefore”, ”Thus” or “Hence”. They indicate that the sentence that
follows is the conclusion of the argument.
Reason markers – ”Because”, ”For”, ”As”, ”For the reason that”, “Since”. The reasons follow
after them.

Note: Since the language is a complex tool of communication, these are NOT always argument
markers. If you have any doubt about the word that indicate reason marker, simply substitute it
by “because” and observe if the meaning stays the same.

Purpose

It is, again, Aristotle who established teleological reasoning in the philosophy (reasoning about
the purpose of social phenomenon). Thus, the argument has also different purposes you can
use them.

1. Persuasion – to make people believe or do something that they would not otherwise believe
or do.

2. Justification – to support already established conclusion by giving reasons for it.

3. Explanation – to give a reason why something happened or why something is true.

By understanding purposes of used arguments, you can evaluate them more easily and critically
as well.

Structure of argument in the debate

In the debate, however, it is not so easy to use a simple structure of the argument as above.
Arguments deployed in the debate are more complex sets of ideas and thus required more
complex structure. On the other hand, the definition stays the same. Your premises have to
establish one concrete conclusion.

Many texts about debating use different ways how to create arguments in the debate. We would
propose the guideline like this:
1. Basic statement of your argument

2. Explanation of processes and principles behind the statement

3. Examples or evidence that supports your statement or explanation

4. Link to the motion of the debate (“Why is your argument relevant for the debate?”).

This structure should help you to build your own arguments in the debate. It covers important
aspects of the debate and it is logically coherent.

“An argument is constituted by two or more explicit and/or implicit claims, one or more of which
supports or provides evidence for the truth or merit of another claim, the conclusion.”
So how do you craft a good argument? Damer shares the five principles for developing a good
argument:

Structure
Relevance
Acceptability
Sufficiency
Rebuttal
Let’s look at each of these principles in more detail.

1. Structure
A good argument must meet the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed
argument.

“Such an argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the
conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion.”
To evaluate any argument for whether it violates the principle of Structure, ask the following
questions:
Does the communication include at least one reason to support the conclusion as being true? If
it doesn’t, then it’s not an argument — it’s merely an opinion. An unsupported conclusion is an
opinion; a conclusion supported by reasons is an argument.
Could any of the key premises be interpreted as making the same claim as the conclusion? If
so, then it’s a “circular argument” — there’s no independent reason given to support the
conclusion. Since A, therefore A. No one is likely to use the exact same words in both the
premise and the conclusion, so you need to ask yourself if a premise can be interpreted as
making the same claim as the conclusion. “Joe is nuts,” Gary says. “Why do you say that?” I
ask. “Because he’s so crazy,” Gary replies. Since A, therefore A.
Do any of the premises contradict another premise, or does the conclusion contradict any of the
premises?
2. Relevance
The reasons that a communicator provides as part of his or her argument must be relevant for
the truth or merit of the conclusion. What makes a premise relevant?

“A premise is relevant if its acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts in favor of, or
has some bearing on the truth or merit of the conclusion. A premise is irrelevant if its
acceptance has no bearing on, provides no evidence for, or has no connection to the truth or
merit of the conclusion.”
To assess whether an argument violates the principle of Relevance, ask these two questions:

If the premise were true, does it make you more likely to believe that the conclusion is true? If
yes, the premise is probably relevant. If no, then the premise is probably not relevant.
Even if the premise were true, should it be a consideration for accepting the truth of the
conclusion? If no, then the premise is probably not relevant. “Jerry is over 6 ft. tall. So he must
be good at basketball.” “Avatar is an artistic masterpiece. After all, it was the highest grossing
film of the year.”
3. Acceptability
The reasons that a communicator provides in his or her argument should be likely to be
accepted by a mature, rational adult. As Damer writes, a premise should be acceptable to a
mature, rational adult if it meets the following standards of premise acceptability:

“A claim that is a matter of undisputed common knowledge.”

“A claim that is confirmed by one’s own personal experience or observation.”
An “uncontroverted eyewitness testimony,” or an “uncontroverted claim from a relevant
authority.”
“A relatively minor claim that seems to be a reasonable assumption in the context of the
argument.”
By contrast, a premise should be rejected by a mature, rational adult if it meets the following
conditions of premise unacceptability:

“A claim that contradicts credible evidence, a well-established claim, or a legitimate authority.”

“A claim that is inconsistent with one’s own experiences or observations.”
“A claim that is based on another unstated but highly questionable assumption.”
An argument meets the acceptability principle when each of its premises conforms to at least
one of the standards of acceptability and none of its premises conforms to the conditions of
unacceptability.

To assess whether an argument violates the principle of Acceptability, ask the following
questions:

Is the premise provided one that a mature, rational adult would likely accept?
What evidence is provided as part of the claim, and does it conform to the standards of
acceptability or the conditions of unacceptability?
Is the premise based on an unstated assumption that a mature, rational adult not be willing to
accept?
4. Sufficiency
A communicator making an argument should provide reasons that are sufficient to justify the
acceptance of his or her conclusion.

“There must be a sufficient number of relevant and acceptable premises of the appropriate kind
and weight in order for an argument to be good enough for us to accept its conclusion.”
This principle is one of the most difficult to apply, because it’s a judgment call. There are no
black-and-white guidelines for what constitutes a “sufficient” number and weight of reasons to
accept a conclusion. Often, it’s a disagreement about the weight or sufficiency of the premises
in an argument that prevents two intelligent and well-meaning people from reaching the same
conclusion based on the same available evidence.

To evaluate whether an argument violates the principle of Sufficiency, ask the following
questions:
Are the reasons provided enough to drive to the arguer’s conclusion? If not, the argument
violates the sufficiency principle.
Is the premise based on insufficient evidence or faulty causal analysis? Some premises provide
evidence that is based on too small a sample or unrepresentative data. Or the evidence is
based on the personal experience of the arguer, or of a small set of acquaintances that the
arguer knows. The premise may be based on faulty causal analysis — assuming A caused B,
even though the two events were unrelated.
Is some key or crucial evidence missing that must be provided in order to accept the argument?
5. Rebuttal
A good argument includes an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the
argument.

“An argument cannot be a good one if it does not anticipate and effectively rebut or blunt the
force of the most serious criticisms against it and the position that it supports… A good arguer
should be constantly mindful of the fact that an argument is not finished until one has ‘finished
off’ the criticisms and counterarguments.”
There are multiple ways that an argument can violate the Rebuttal principle. Arguers often use
diversionary tactics instead of making effective rebuttals.

“For example, arguments that misrepresent the criticism, bring up trivial objections as a side
issue, or resort to humor or ridicule are using devices that clearly fail to make effective
responses. The same can be said of those arguments that ignore or deny the counterevidence
against the position defended. Finally, some arguers try to avoid responding to a criticism by
attacking the critic instead of the criticism.”
To assess whether an argument fails to meet the Rebuttal principle, ask the following questions:

Does the argument provided address the strongest counterarguments effectively?

Does the arguer anticipate and address serious weaknesses in the argument?
Does the argument show why alternative positions are flawed?
Making your own argument stronger

Structure of argument in the debate

In the debate, however, it is not so easy to use a simple structure of the argument as above.
Arguments deployed in the debate are more complex sets of ideas and thus required more
complex structure. On the other hand, the definition stays the same. Your premises have to
establish one concrete conclusion.

Many texts about debating use different ways how to create arguments in the debate. We would
propose the guideline like this:

1. Basic statement of your argument

2. Explanation of processes and principles behind the statement

3. Examples or evidence that supports your statement or explanation

4. Link to the motion of the debate (“Why is your argument relevant for the debate?”).

This structure should help you to build your own arguments in the debate. It covers important
aspects of the debate and it is logically coherent.

An argument is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but
one of them (the premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the
conclusion).
And then some definitions:

logic: the study of the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning
proposition: a statement that is declared by a declarative statement that can either be true or
false. Also commonly referred to as a claim
premise: a statement whos truth is used to infer that of others. Think of this as a building block
for an argument, or a link in a chain with the last link being your conclusion
inference: the relationship that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a logical
argument, or the process of drawing a conclusion from premises that support it deductively or
inductively
conclusion: a proposition whose truth has been inferred on the basis of other propositions
assembled with it in a logical argument
The transition or movement from premises to conclusion, the logical connection between them,
is the inference upon which the argument relies.1

There are two main types of argument: deductive, and inductive. I like about.com’s explanation
of the two:2

A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the
conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In
this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a
classic example:
Or, in other words: the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the
conclusion.

All men are mortal. (premise)

Socrates was a man. (premise)
Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in
such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false.
Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example:
Or in other words: the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true.

Socrates was Greek. (premise)

Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
Basic Structure
First, a definition:

An argument involves the process of establishing a claim and then proving it with the use of
logical reasoning, examples, and research.
Which gets organized like so:

Title
Introduction
Thesis statement
Body Paragraphs
Constructing Topic Sentences
Building Main Points
Countering the Opposition
Conclusion
Title
Just as with any writing, it’s important to make a first impression. For an argument that has a
form appropriate for the use of title (formal oral or written), this is the opportunity to make that
first impression.

Puns
Humor
Using words or examples from the main argument to be found later
Asking a question
Avoid clichés
Don’t be boring
Introduction
The key with the intro is to smoothly slide into your argument while appearing to entertain–
unless of course you’re doing some sort of strict or formal deal, at which point you can take the
line of, “in this argument I intend to show”, etc. etc. But most arguments don’t happen in this
fashion, so I’m going to cover the natural form.

Consider these as openers:

personal anecdote
a nifty quote
shocking stats (the more solid the better, of course)
an image that will prompt a reaction
a question
Regardless of how you set it up, the main point is to blend naturally into your main argument,
which is defined by your thesis statement.

Your Thesis
This statement basically frames the entire argument. It’s critical that you are very careful with it,
as you will be defending it for the rest of the talk, paper, debate, etc.

The thesis is what you are trying to convince the readers/listeners of. It is not a fact; it’s a
proposition (also known as “declarative sentence”) that has to be proven by your forthcoming
argument.

Supporting Paragraphs
Just as you were taught in high school to do with essays, we support arguments (which an
essay basically is) by using body paragraphs. These give support to your primary claim made in
your introduction / thesis.

The strongest support often comes from well-respected data on the topic you’re discussing, e.g.
data from large, well-done studies, solid polling data (if you’re discussing opinion), etc. The key
is to have the data come from a source that is least exposed to scrutiny due to small sample
sizes, faulty methodologies, or bias.

Addressing the Counterarugument

Your argument will face opposition; it’s up to you to figure out exactly what shape that
resistance will take, and to adequately handle it preemptively at various points within your
supporting paragraphs.

Be careful to approach these counterarguments with respect, and to form a significant attack on
your own idea when addressing the counterarguments. To stand up a weaker version of the real
counter, only to knock it down with ease, will cause many to dismiss your entire effort outright.

Also try to avoid rude, hostile, or deprecating language when addressing counterpoints; this
tactic can easily result in the audience that you most care about (those who disagree with you)
ignoring your argument due to adverse emotional reaction.

Conclusion
The conclusion should basically restate your originial proposition (claim), and then lay out the
support you have given to it. You can slightly restate your claim, but avoid adding any additional
claims–as these too would require their own support.

Case (argument)- the parts

Having outlined the whole of your argument, you must then begin to build a case (the parts).
The best way to do this is to divide your case into between two and four arguments (or divide
your case based on the number of people in your group). You must justify your arguments with
basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about the strategy of
“proof”. Proof, or evidence, supporting your assertion is what makes it an argument. There are a
number of ways of dividing up cases according to groups of arguments (eg
political/economic/social or moral/practical or international/regional etc.) or just according to
individual arguments if you can’t group any together. Under each of these basic headings you
should then explain the reasoning behind the argument and justify it using the methods outlined
above. It is usually best to put the most important arguments first. Here is an example of a
case outline:

“The media exert more influence over what people think than the government does. This is
true for three reasons. Firstly, most people base their votes on what they see and hear in the
media. Secondly, the media can set the political agenda between elections by deciding what
issues to report and in how much detail. Thirdly, the media have successfully demonized
politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely to believe journalists than
politicians.”

All of the arguments in this case outline are debatable (almost immediately you can see the
counter-arguments), but they give the case a wide range which cover all kinds of issues. The
trick is not to come up with a watertight case, but a well argued one. Think: “Can I argue that?”

Rebuttal – the parts

Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. They may be misinterpretations or they
may also be unimportant or irrelevant. A team may also contradict one another or fail to
complete the tasks they set themselves. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every
argument can be found wanting in at least one of these respects. Here are a few examples:
1. “Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the country money in pensions and
healthcare.” This is true, but is morally flawed.

2. “Banning cigarette product placement in films will cause more young people to smoke
because it will make smoking more mysterious and taboo.” This is logically flawed, the ban
would be more likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem attractive
and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking.

3. “My partner will then look at the economic issues...” “Blah..blah..blah...(5 minutes later and
still no mention of the economic issues)” This is a clear failure to explain a major part of the
case and attention should be drawn to it. Even better is when a speaker starts with, “to win this
debate there are three things I must do…”. If the speaker fails to do any of those things you can
then hang her or him by the noose by repeating their exact words – by his or her own admission
he or she cannot have won the debate.

Rebuttal – the whole:

It is very important to have a good perspective of the debate and to identify what the key
arguments are. It isn’t enough to rebut a few random arguments here and there. Of course the
techniques used above are invaluable but they must be used appropriately. There are a
number of things you should do to systematically break down a team’s case:

1. Ask yourself how the other side have approached the case. Is their methodology flawed?

2. Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact
addressed these.

3. Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes. Try to
refute these.

4. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a point of rebuttal
that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument
has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You won’t have time and
your aim is to show the other side’s case to be flawed in the key areas.