How to spot weak arguments
When you’re debating, you’ll come up against many styles of arguing, based on all different levels of arguing. If you’re in the debate to win, you’ll have to spot the flaws in opposing arguments and point them out, or exploit them like a weak spot. Sometimes it’s as easy as listening for fuzzy words. Here are some words and phrases that are easy indications of flaws:
many, all, a lot, every, none, nobody, much, more - Solid arguments use actual numbers with references to their source. These words can indicate implied statistics that show the debater is making up a fact rather than working off real data. Example: “Many Christians disagree” never, always, usually, tend, trend - These may be blanket statements that imply cause and effect, or assumptions about overall responses and opinions that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Example: “the rich have always been getting richer” I, I don’t think, I believe - including yourself in the argument can indicate thinking personal experience equals the overall trend. If the debate is not a poll or about individual views, this can be Hasty Generalization. Here are some examples from CreateDebate: From: Should the US have seatbelt laws? Someone who manages to use words from two categories:”I always choose to wear one” From: Man vs. Elephant : can you escape?“I am much more shifty than an elephant and would be able to escape if ONE was chasing me in a large field by cutting and weaving.”and one rebuttal that found the critical flaw:”Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run…” So next time you’re arguing with friends or proving your point in an online debate, listen in for these hints for weak arguments and when you make your response make it stronger by avoiding the same flaws.The article has
Written by Dan
May 14th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Posted in Debate Commentary, Random Musings
If you want to advance even further, you can name the logical fallacies your opponents employ to further their opinion:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
A lot of arguments can be completely deconstructed, because they are based on one or many of the 20 fallacies listed.
PS: The SGU podcast is great, if you haven’t checked it out.
Marco
15 May 08 at 2:15 am
I don’t know: Often times I use myself as an example, or as more of a standard I suppose, in arguments and I dominate most discussions that I get myself into.
Charles Lumia
15 May 08 at 10:41 pm
“I” think this was a good post
THEDert
15 May 08 at 10:59 pm
Although these rules apply only in situations where your audience reacts solely to logic. However, they ignore the fact that people often act irrationally and may easily persuaded by appeals to emotion.
Gustavo
16 May 08 at 9:51 am
Often times I use Charles Lumia as an example too, or as more of a standard I suppose, and people say, “what are you talking about” or “who the f*@K is Charles Lumia?”
Not Charles Lumia
16 May 08 at 5:54 pm
I stll think a man could out-weave an elephant
Scott
16 May 08 at 6:10 pm
“Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run…”
That was a terrible example of debating! it completely missed the point. the argument that you could escape an elephant by ducking and weaving is so full of flaws and yet that rebuttle completely misses them and quotes a nigh on irrelevent statistic.
Burketo
16 May 08 at 6:10 pm
I don’t remember who I got this from but a good way to end an argument is to say, “That sounds like something Stalin [or insert any other undesirable person here] would say…
KingOfTheBeetlePeople
16 May 08 at 6:26 pm
These of course, are contextual rules - as are all rules. If someone uses terminology such as “more” or “many”, it may be the case that they actually know the real statistics; or perhaps in a debate between two or more persons in the same field, such words are used because the statistics or information is practically common knowledge.
The first and most important rule of thumb is remembering that people only truly know something if they have had direct experience with it. Call them out on what they say - whatever they say.
Close
16 May 08 at 6:28 pm
Look for absolute statements and try to use non-absolute assertions in your arguments: use “few”, “many” and “most” instead of “all”, “none” or “never” (never say never). Absolute assertions in debates are rarely true - assertions with relative amounts are debatable but much harder to disprove without hard numbers - for most issues there are exceptions to the rule.
Lookup the facts behind an assertion before making it.
Try to understand the difference between someone stating an opinion and someone making an assertion of fact. Be careful about asserting that “I know” something vs. “I believe” something vs. “I think” something - three different statements that are often conflated both by the people making them and the people reading them.
Know what words mean and use them properly.
Don’t attack the person - attack the message.
When the opposition makes a point that is valid don’t bother trying to dispute it, either acknowledge it or don’t address it. My goal is to arrive at the truth, not necessarily to win, so lying or disputing the truth defeats my purpose.
The Heretic
16 May 08 at 6:34 pm
I agree with the first commenter. Learning how to spot logical fallacies is quite useful…and SGU is teh awesome.
AaronSTL
16 May 08 at 6:39 pm
Good luck winning arguements relying on those rules. People tune out when you feed them nothing but facts. They like hearing stories, experiences, things they can imagine or relate to.
Oh, and have fun trying to remember all those stats next time you get into a discussion on how more gun ownership means less crime or how many people were left homeless and landless when the US occupied many of the thirdworld countries out there.
Aaron
16 May 08 at 6:44 pm
The problem with your little delusion is that you presume the existence of “facts”: Unless you are omniscient, as in capable of knowing *ALL* variables & how to correctly interpret &/or apply them, you have to rely on statistics; & as any freshman stat class graduate can tell you, statistics can be made to say anything you want. The sad fact is that even repeatable hard-core science is pretty much entirely comprised of **guesses** (AKA theories) that haven’t encountered anomalies that make current *THEORY* fall apart. This all makes the vaguenesses you equate with dubiousness turn out to be *more correct* because they acknowledge the limits of certitude inherent in reasoning without being all-knowing.
LHaw
16 May 08 at 6:45 pm
The elephant may be able to charge at 25MPH but how fast can he turn?
Tron
16 May 08 at 6:46 pm
Upon analysis of the comments, roughly 75% were positive answers, which leads us to conclude that this can be considered a great post.
Jonathan Grand
16 May 08 at 7:01 pm
Bad example! The elephant retort failed to take into account the speed at which human beings can change direction compared to elephants. A charging elephant can go straight forward at 25 mph, but it can’t zig-zag or change direction quickly. If the elephant is charging, it becomes a matter of making sure it’s charging in the wrong direction, which is definitely possible.
Otherwise… Good post!
Damon
16 May 08 at 7:18 pm
Good article.
Those words you listed do come up in debates way too often. Even though this may make you feel better by using facts, it doesn’t necessarily mean that your opponent will be smart enough to realize this.
Josh
16 May 08 at 7:31 pm
You would be able to outrun an elephant in a field, it’s very simple, you wait for him to charge you, and you run to the left or the right, when he starts bearing down on you again, you turn again. You are much more agile than an elephant, so even though they may be faster, you should be able to escape a charge via this simple method.
liquidoc
16 May 08 at 7:32 pm
“Often times I use myself as an example, or as more of a standard I suppose, in arguments and I dominate most discussions that I get myself into.”
Wow, you sound like a witty and charming individual. I now know how to make people like me more. I’ll browbeat my opinions into them until I make them respect and admire me. Bring on the females!
marvin
16 May 08 at 7:35 pm
I don’t know about this. For my own part, I use a lot of qualifying words specifically to acknowledge the fact that the point I am trying to make is very rarely going to be true in 100% of situations.
Chris
16 May 08 at 8:17 pm
How to spot weak articles:
If an article is around 10 sentences long it likely did not have much thought put into it.
Rob
16 May 08 at 8:24 pm
“WE ALL KNOW what flies like to hang around!!”; Simple appeals to ‘group think’ and innuendo get way more credit than they’re worth too.
Dan
16 May 08 at 8:33 pm
You use trend and a key phrase to look for then use it to support one of your arguments… So which is weak, the use of the term “trend” or your specific use of ‘trend’?
duncen
16 May 08 at 8:44 pm
“Although these rules apply only in situations where your audience reacts solely to logic.”
The basic concept of an argument implies a logic-based exchange; if there’s no logic, it’s not an argument. The article didn’t say how to spot weak conversations, it is specifically addressing weak arguments.
Mike
16 May 08 at 8:59 pm
Is that an African Elephant, or an Indian Elephant?
Unladen?
Ra
16 May 08 at 9:03 pm
I love the idea of using real Createdebate examples.
Hamandcheese
16 May 08 at 9:16 pm
A good techique is to use Socratic method of asking questions that require person to present facts or admit that they are speaking opinion.
Example: In reply to the statement “Many Christians”, ask how many.
marstaskforce
richard Bates
16 May 08 at 9:50 pm
The comments about out manuevering an elephant are laughable… would you risk your life on it. This is unlikely and based on your perception that larger implies less agile.
volterwd
16 May 08 at 9:56 pm
How to spot weak arguments at The CreateDebate Blog
When you’re debating, you’ll come up against many styles of arguing, based on all different levels of arguing. If you’re in the debate to win, you’ll have to spot the flaws in opposing arguments and point them out, or exploit them like a weak s…
Kwoff.com
16 May 08 at 11:13 pm
[…] read more | digg story […]
How to Spot & Destroy Weak Arguments « Outofbound’s Weblog
16 May 08 at 11:52 pm
[…] Go! And then Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
How to spot weak arguments at The CreateDebate Blog
17 May 08 at 12:01 am
If you’re really good at argument then you understand that it is impossible to prove the validity of any argument, and your poor opponent will be grasping for straws as you undermine everything they ever thought was right by applying increasing levels of skepticism.
Having said this, “I believe” is perhaps the strongest argument around. In fact, I cannot argue with it at all because it is purely subjective and in a purely skeptical/agnostic world there is nothing more demonstrably correct.
Nonetheless, most find this perspective to be ‘impractical’ and will point to silly examples such as “if nobody thought anything was right, how could the wheel have been invented?” Easy. Inventing the wheel did not require a correct argument - it only required that somebody invent the wheel.
TheOne
17 May 08 at 12:10 am
A lot of arguments can be completely deconstructed, because they are based on one or many of the 20 fallacies listed.”
Following weakness:
“A lot of arguments” use of a a lot
PS. no such word as deconstructed
Andrey
17 May 08 at 12:42 am
[…] on the issue, I’ll concede and explain my ignorance immediately after making the realization.read more | digg […]
Tire Directory » How to Spot & Destroy Weak Arguments
17 May 08 at 1:12 am
The funny thing about debates and arguments that aren’t formal and prepared for in a serious manner is that they are like scraps outside bars - usually it’s just people trying to rough each other up over a perceived wrong or just for a feeling of superiority. And besides, just because a person is competent with logic and coherent communication, does not automatically make that person right. The same things can be used to deceive or unfairly place doubt. Someone who does not know how to debate, or who does not know much about logic, may still be right even if they technically lose a debate. The other side simply has to refuse to acknowledge that they are right, and keep arguing in an attempt to convince everyone else that they are right. Logic ends up being some sort of sport of social self-gratification more than a pursuit of truth. The saddest thing is when a group is vocal about their skepticism and logical thinking, but on a subtle social level they are dazzled by groupthink like moths on a window at night. I would like to add: avoid a need to be part of some army of logic, or your logic will have roots in poison soil. Use your logic as a tool, but not the end all, be all of human reason. Even logic has flaws.
Span of the Bow
17 May 08 at 3:19 am
To clarify, midway through my comment I should have said, “The debater versed in logic simply has to refuse to acknowledge that their less-skilled opponent is right, and keep arguing in an attempt to turn opinion against their opponent.” I’ve seen this happen many times due to grudges and something akin to missionary zeal.
Span of the Bow
17 May 08 at 3:22 am
How about just start a little argument and then if you feel your starting to lose, then just say “I wash my hands of this” or “who cares”. A little common sense is fine, in the world of the internet everyone fact checks and can only be defeated on an argument beaten with sound logic. IRL if you shout loud enough people will back down, or laugh depending on your disposition.
Lawsy
17 May 08 at 3:46 am
How to Spot & Destroy Weak Arguments
Keep these simple rules in the back of your mind so that next time somebody tries to get in your face, you can slice them deep (all the way to the white meat).
Memmoo.com
17 May 08 at 5:56 am
[…] read more | digg story […]
sanver.info » Blog Archive » How to Spot & Destroy Weak Arguments
17 May 08 at 6:46 am
The problem is that nobody wants to hear the truth. Atheists, no doubt very well represented here, would point for example to Darwinism.
Unfortunately : this simple and evident point always gets contested, despite it being the basis of the theory. So atheists merely use the word itself as a retort, and forego it’s meaning, it’s implications.
Darwinism is eternal, perpetual resource war, only limited by the laws of the jungle. Anyone who fails to participate (going as far as possible without getting caught) will either die violently, due to active violence of others, or die without (or with less) children, who are at a bigger risk of getting killed by those with an “advantage”.
That’s Darwinism. That’s what supposed to replace christian ethics in the minds of atheists. Do you think anyone wants the truth ?
You can’t handle the truth.
Tom
17 May 08 at 7:06 am
And here I thought this article would at least mention logical fallacies with arguments. Sure, those things above do point to weak arguments but you can have a weak argument and not have any of those things mentioned above. What if your initial assumption for your argument is wrong and you presumed it right. That makes the whole argument wrong too.
Benny
17 May 08 at 9:52 am
Try outrunning an elephant in a field, even if you could out-weave it. Let’s assume you are both in the middle of the field, and that your weaving abilities are better. Try imagine a path to getting out of the field and to safety. When you far enough away, dodging is less an advantage than speed. When you dodge, you change direction. How will you get to the edge of the field. Eventually the race will come down to endurance.
On another note, a lot of people are assuming there is a right and wrong side to an argument. Often, (let’s say 87%, haha) truth and fallacy is on both sides of a 2-sided debate.
Stormboy
17 May 08 at 8:20 pm
While i respect the motives of these guidelines, they exist in a fantasy world.
Just because someone doesn’t have global statistics doesn’t mean their point is moot. And this whole thing stinks of wanting to jump to conclusions early.
There are no shortcuts, whether someone says “many” or gives you a percentage, either way you’ll have to check their accuracy. It’s counter-productive towards constructive arguments if you’re going no nit pick about details that aren’t relevant to the main point.
Just out of Curiosity, what percentages would qualify for words like “Many” according to you? Do you expect over 50% or 90%? Or do you do it on a case by case basis?
Fast Eddy
18 May 08 at 1:51 am
[…] How to spot weak arguments at The CreateDebate Blog (tags: debate howto communication argument tips language logic words *) […]
links for 2008-05-20 « Simply… A User
19 May 08 at 7:33 pm
This is about the craziest thing I have ever heard of!if you don’t know the statistical facts yourself, how do you know if the other person isn’t accurate or is full of crap? plus, there are numerous situations where actual numbers are not really neccessary to prove a point(police relating criminal activity in a certain area, news reporter talking about the recent upswing in the number of new houses for sale, etc. etc.) These instances don’t call for actual numbers, but we know them to be true.
Same could be said of an informal, unprepared argument(you call it a debate) between two people!
dieheartfan
26 May 08 at 12:43 am