Chapter 7 deals with counterarguments. A counterargument is important in any dialogue/argument. Lawyers use counterarguments all the time in court, but we use counterarguments too. Sometimes if someone is deciding to do A or B, he or she will argue and counter argue in their head about the best possible outcome. When we argue with someone other than ourselves, we can refute an argument directly or indirectly. There are three ways to refute an argument directly. From the list in the book, the best way I see to refute an argument is to show that the conclusion is false. A good debate requires that the people make good points and good premises, but the conclusion is where they differ. Republicans and Democrats argue over the role of government. Both sides make good points, but Republicans conclude that government is bad because of its many failings. Democrats would not argue that government has not failed, but to then jump to the conclusion government is bad is where the argument occurs.
The best way I remembered the definition of a counterargument was an argument or a claim that can have a reputable comeback. This is always prominent in political debates and reminds me of my POLS 20 class, where we were assigned multiple arguments and had to create multiple rebuttals and then present to the class.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it took me 80 times to read, your choice for refuting an argument to show that the conclusion is false only briefly exemplified your example. Maybe it’s just me, but I think a plausible counterargument for the Democrat example would be: “the government is not perfect, and wouldn’t be if it didn’t learn from previous mistakes.”