Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss
a conviction, a politician opposing an incumbent, or even a scientist challenging an existing theory.
Responsibilities of Arguers
Argumentation is much broader than proving guilt or matters of fact. Advocates dispute not only facts, but also values, policies, even the definition of key terms. Further, it is typical for complex arguments to involve questions about several or all types of propositions, often in interaction with one another. Advocates in a debate often contest propositions of policy, going well beyond the sorts of issues raised in legal (forensic) settings. Indeed, arguing the implications of a policy sometimes leads advocates into the realm of the purely speculative, a place lawyers are loathe to go.
The behavior of every advocate is shaped by the responsibilities inherent in the argument. Even with the differences among different types of argumentation, despite the varying degrees of formality in the setting, advocates advancing, defending, or attacking claims must fulfill a universal set of requirements:
Responsibility I—Going Forward
Previously we used the example of a defense attorney who chose not to answer an opponent’s case. In nearly every situation, this is a counterproductive argumentative stance. Only the weakest and least legitimate affirmative cases allow the possibility of a non-response. Obviously, though, even when the negative perceives the affirmative’s argument this way, there is no guarantee that it will look that way to the judges and audiences of argument. Thus, it would be argumentatively self-destructive to fail to answer an opponent’s claims. (What if those judging the argument see the issues altogether differently?)
Advocates must answer their opponents' arguments. This is called “the burden of going forward” with the argument, the responsibility that both sides in a controversy continue to advance their respective sides, as well as respond their opponent’s arguments (the sub-responsibility of rebuttal). The key feature of this responsibility is the “taking up” of the argument. When an advocate launches a set of claims in support of a proposition, he or she is inviting response. The responsibility of going forward indicates that “the ball is in your court,” and that it is the time for counter-advocacy.
It is most important to recognize that the responsibility for going forward with an argument in no way changes the burden of proof. The burden of proof always stays with the proposition, and the side that supports the proposition (in debate, the affirmative; in law, the prosecution or plaintiff; in a deliberative assembly, the maker of a motion). It is the responsibility, or burden, of going forward that alternates, back and forth, between the sides in a controversy as each presents its material.
Responsibility II—Evidence
Arguing demands more than just expressing one’s own opinions. The best arguments are well supported with evidence. Evidence, anything that is produced to support a claim, can run the gamut from the very strong to the very weak. Evidence shows up in facts, expert testimony, illustrations, examples, analogies, statistics, and studies. In courtrooms there is even physical evidence, actual objects or artifacts that lead one toward an argument’s claim. (“This is the murder weapon. It belongs to the defendant. Hence the defendant is the murderer.”)
There are well-understood and widely accepted criteria for evaluating evidence, for separating the strong from the weak:
•Recency--evidence offered should be the most up to date available. The most recent evidence is not necessarily the best, but the more recent the evidence the less likely it is to be minimized or refuted in the face of something newer. An economist offers evidence that we are entering a recession, and the evidence incorporates economic data that stop three years ago. A second economist using data that is within three quarters can make a better case, especially if the more recent data disconfirms the first economist’s conclusion.
•Authority—the authority of a source has to do with its legitimacy to speak to an issue in an argument. An authority can be an institution, a person, a publication, or an organization. The authoritative nature of sources tends to disembody them. Note, however, that we often forget that the conclusions of studies, as well as what is reported in publications, is still primarily the result of an individual’s thinking or research conclusion. We often mistake an authority’s opinion for the hard data in the research.
•Public Access—it is in the nature of evidence that it be public. Every party to a dispute has the right to see it and find it. Evidence cannot be private, personal, or secret. One of the unfortunate aspects of public policy debate in a democracy is that sometimes the government keeps evidence secret, or classified. Hence the citizens’ ability to participate fully in the debate over the actions of its government is severely impaired.
•Methodological Scrutiny—it does not make sense to offer evidence unless one knows how it was acquired. If evidence is the result of an empirical study, then one ought to be familiar with how its data was collected as well as how its conclusions were inferred. An advocate cannot simply put forward the conclusions and opinions of experts. Advocates must know something about how experts reach their conclusions—including the underlying assumptions.
•Full Disclosure/Documentation—argumentation must never rely on trickery. The source for one’s evidence needs to be fully disclosed to all parties to a controversy. Advocates have a responsibility to cite and attribute sources of information, and acknowledge where they acquired their information. Given the fluid nature of electronic sourcing of evidence, it is especially important that all evidence be fully documented, and that it is retrievable in the form in which it is cited during an argument.
•Ethics—evidence needs to be used ethically, avoiding distortion, ellipsis, omission, or reading out of context. Evidence must never be fabricated, and advocates have a responsibility neither to exaggerate nor misrepresent the implications of a study, expert opinion, or publication. Often advocates, under time pressure, read only sections of published material, not realizing that the conclusions of such material may in fact contradict the general tenor of their positions. It is improper to read balanced research, for example, as one-sided.
•Relevance/Grounding—a particular misapplication of evidence is to incorporate it when it lacks germaneness to the issue. Advocates must scrutinize their evidence for true relevance to the issues being argued. Further, advocates have a responsibility to ensure that their evidence is “grounded” with respect to the issues at hand. Evidence does not exist in a vacuum, and advocates must place any evidence offered in a real context, detailed enough to evaluate its significance and relevance.
Responsibility III—Clash
A simple word, clash, conveys a tremendous amount about what is central in argumentation and advocacy. Clash is the core tension that advocates inculcate in making argument the unique activity that it is. Novice debaters often miss the essential nature of clash in debate. They often feel that their arguments must supersede or surpass one another’s. Debaters often hope to win their arguments by virtue of the opponents’ unpreparedness or non-responsiveness.
In fact, what characterizes a “real” argument is the very direct way in which arguments line up against one another. The clash—the direct opposition of point to counterpoint—is the very heart of the enterprise. Nothing is quite as tedious as watching an argument in which the “opposing” viewpoints aren’t clashing. This, unfortunately, is the downfall of many political “debates” in which the candidates present nothing more than dueling speeches and press-releases (“talking points). There is rarely a proposition for debate under consideration in a political forum; as a result we do not have a chance to see the candidates as advocates, clashing over issues. Political debates can be most unsatisfying to audiences; the absence of clash leaves issues unresolved and policy differences unclear.
Responsibility IV—Extension
Because arguments need to clash, they must also develop.