Blog #3: The Problem with Modern Day Argumentation

A major problem with modern day arguments is that people get lazy when trying to get their opinions heard. Instead of utilizing civility, strategic language, or profound thoughts, individuals result to lazy methods to quickly—and messily—get their points across. In “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother with Logic,” essayist Rebecca Jones refers to the novel Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francesca Henkeman. Jones summarizes that “there should be rules for a proper argument to ensure fairness, logic, and a solution to the problem being addressed.” Although its good for argumentation to be organic, rules should be applied because modern arguments have become largely unintellectual and one-sided.

As Jones points out, the dilemma of the downgrading quality of argumentation can be observed in everyday life. Personally, I’m constantly watching my parents “argue.” Having been recently divorced, they frequently have disputes over every possible thing: who will visit me when, why one didn’t receive a piece of mail when it was delivered, when one of them will move out of our hometown to prevent accidental meetings. But regardless of the seriousness of their arguments, they rarely use tactical arguing skills. Their sole focus is getting their opinions heard. And, because they’re too focused on their own words, they don’t even register what the other is saying. They block one another out, bring in unrelated information to just make the other one look bad, and refuse to converse courteously.

My parents are only two of many people who are guilty of arguing in such an improper manner. Because these methods have become so commonly used in real world arguing, society simply accepts this as the new standard for arguing. If this problem goes unaddressed, it can snowball until the majority cannot differentiate good and bad argumentation. Although, there are obvious solutions to this dilemma.

One of them simply being to improve on our curiosity and open-mindedness. As individuals, we have to work on our willingness to listen to others’ thoughts and opinions, no matter how convinced we are of our own. If we have the genuine interest and tolerance to listen to different ideas, modern day argumentation would instantly improve.

Another solution, as proposed by the novel Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation, would be implementing a set of rules. Jones summarizes that authors van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkeman believed that “[v]iolating these rules causes a fallacious argument and can result in a standoff rather than a solution.”  These suggested rules would prevent fallacious, or untrue, arguing. Instead they ensure that a solution is reached and no unfair or hostile tactics are used. An example of a rule would be “The Burden-of-Proof Rule,” stating that every participant of an argument is obliged to defend their standpoints with factual evidence. This rule requires individuals to be knowledgeable when it comes to their specific argument.

Among the remaining nine rules are: “The Relevance Rule,” “The Validity Rule,” and “The Closure Rule.” The last listed rule states that participants should back down, or admit their faults, when their argument falls short. This set of rules guarantees that arguments remain respectful, well-informed, and cohesive.

These rules, paired with increased curiosity and open-mindedness, would resolve our nation’s problem of lazy and uneducated argumentation. Its important that we remedy this problem because arguing is a fundamental way to challenge and share ideas.