Skip to main content

Verified by Psychology Today

Decision-Making

Why We Should Argue

What an argument is, what it isn’t, and how you can rethink engaging in one.

Tirachard Kumtanom / Pexels
Source: Tirachard Kumtanom / Pexels

When most people think of the word "argument," they might think of phrases like "heated exchange," or "fight" (verbal, that is). However, this is not an accurate interpretation of the word. Quite recently, a friend of mine had an argument with his wife about some topic at a small gathering of immediate family and when his mother-in-law cut in to demand that no fighting should take place under her roof, both he and his wife turned to her and responded that they were not fighting at all. They simply disagreed with each other’s perspectives and were arguing to convey their rationale.

Some of you may read this as a rather cringy experience, arguing at a family gathering. But such a perspective only further exemplifies the generally biased view of "arguing." If anything, I think the ability for spouses to engage each other in conversation this way is really healthy. Argumentation—as this man and his wife were conducting—is a vital tool in the decision-making process, particularly if the subject is one about which both participants care. It’s not about conflict, it’s about presenting ideas and either accepting or rejecting them.

Fundamentally, an argument is a network of premises presented in a manner that facilitates inference of some claim (Dwyer, 2011). Ideally, this network should be structured logically, according to various rules of argumentation (rules that can be adhered to or violated, thus, influencing the strength of the argument; e.g., sound vs. flawed). In turn, argumentation is “a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint…by putting forward a constellation of propositions intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint” (van Eemeren et al., 1996, p. 5). In argumentation, one must engage the argument for purposes of identifying, analysing, and evaluating the logical relationships amongst the propositions presented (Walton, 2006).

When asked to describe an argument as simply as possible, I generally present it as any piece of text or dialogue inclusive of words like "but," "because," "however," "therefore," etc. When people note that you might be hard-pressed to find any page of text that doesn’t include one of those words, I nod in agreement so as to reinforce the commonality of argumentation in our day-to-day lives.

We engage arguments all of the time, across a variety of different forms: for example, a TV commercial provides a one-sided argument for why you should purchase some breakfast cereal, an editorial in the newspaper pushes an argument for a policy change, a two-sided argument at work determines which pitch is best to present to your potential client, or a two-sided argument with your spouse could be about how best to potty-train your toddler.

Though argumentation often takes the shape of disagreement (and yes, sometimes they do get heated), it is ultimately engaged to convey a viewpoint. Sometimes, this is done in a persuasive manner to sway an individual, and other times this is done to facilitate enhanced decision-making. Essentially, argumentation (if conducted appropriately) leads to results.

Unfortunately, some arguments simply end in stalemates because neither side is open to amending their perspective and some people simply avoid engaging arguments with others because of a biased view of the process as conflict. This is a shame if "results" are what’s desired. From a critical thinking standpoint, argumentation is necessary when we want to draw conclusions about topics we care about. So, greater efforts need to be made to purge argument and argumentation of this connotation of being some kind of heated conflict.

We need to stop fearing debate and both recognise and embrace the activity as a useful tool for learning new information and becoming better thinkers. We also need to embrace the notion that we might be wrong in our thinking and that using argumentation is a great way of checking and correcting potentially fallacious thinking, but that’s a topic for another day.

References

Dwyer, C.P. (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool. Doctoral Thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway.

van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F.S., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Krabbe, E.C.W., Planitin, C., Walton, D.N., Willard, C.A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

advertisement
More from Christopher Dwyer Ph.D.
More from Psychology Today
More from Christopher Dwyer Ph.D.
More from Psychology Today