Argumentation: Advanced argumentation

Learning about advanced argumentation is about taking greater care to properly develop every part of an argument. Regarding basic argumentation, we often rely on intuition and simplistic explanations. With advanced argumentation, we attempt to characterize and structure our actions.

Most arguments are composed of two major steps:

1. Description of the world — this is what the explanation and the example parts of the argument are about. The description of the world explains what the world is like and how it works: this means describing certain processes, entities, etc.,
2. Impacting these processes. If step a) determines what the world is like or would be like with some implemented change, this step explains why this is either good or bad.

Advanced explanations: mechanization

Describing the world means identifying different things and how they interact. You can, in broad terms, equate description to mechanization. Think of a mechanism, perhaps an engine or a computer — different parts with different properties affect each other. To describe how a machine works is to discern its internal processes. One might think, then, that such an approach works in engineering only, but it turns out that we can help ourselves by similarly treating the world. Using the analogy of a mechanism is useful even when it comes to random natural and societal phenomena because it forces us to look at a seemingly opaque feature and break it down into parts and interactions.

Even a basic argument can fall under the category of mechanization, for instance:

Dogs shed fur,

dogs like resting on sofas and shed a lot of fur on them,

fur is hard to get out of sofas;

therefore, getting a dog will necessitate a lot of additional cleaning.

This simple argument describes a process so rudimentary and obvious that it does not require much more. Most significant arguments concern complex questions, making them more controversial and disputed — a universally accepted truth is that getting a dog would increase the need for cleaning. On the other hand, complex arguments might not be accepted or believed by everyone; they might be contested, which means, firstly, we should make them as nuanced as possible at the start, but, secondly, we should improve them as we receive feedback and criticism.

Complex arguments can be improved by two approaches that we can call vertical and horizontal expansion.

Expanding an argument horizontally, in effect, means that you search for various reasons why something (i.e., the statement you are setting out to prove) is true — various mechanisms supporting the validity of your statement. You want more than one reason to increase the likelihood of your statement being accepted as true. Further, as we advance in building arguments, we want to consider our argument and the potential refutation of our claims. Expanding horizontally makes our arguments more difficult to refute - if someone disproves one mechanism, you still have other mechanisms supporting your claim. Let’s look at an example having to do with Park and Ride programs, such as the one available in Tallinn, Estonia:

Statement: Park and Ride programs, where parking facilities are built on the outskirts of a town and connected with public transportation, are an inefficient solution for traffic jams because

1. they incentivize the use of cars;
2. they divert money from large-scale investments into public transport systems;
3. they, at best, help the affluent urban population.

Each of the three subpoints is its reason or mechanism (i.e., a broken-down description of the world) that independently shows why the argument is true. An important point of consideration is that these reasons often seem independent of one another — they are more useful because they make the argument more resilient. Why are they not different arguments, given they are independent? Well, they technically could be, but the point of the argument is its statement, thesis, that is what we are trying to prove (for whatever reason) — if we made independent reasons into different arguments, we would essentially create three different arguments that prove the same thing in different ways. On a logical level, there is nothing wrong with that; it is just that it is usually less efficient.

Vertical expansion, then, stands for breaking down each mechanism or reason. This means expanding your logical chain and adding intermediary steps explaining your thinking. This expansion should make your overall argument more convincing by fleshing out the reasoning behind your claims. If before your logical chain had the following form:

A and B, therefore C and finally D.

You could expand it to say:

Because of I and II, we can assume A.

B follows from III.

The fact that A and B are true leads us to conclude C, which leads to IV and V.

From that we conclude D.

Sounds like gibberish? Let us make sense of this using our Park and Ride program example. Here is our initial claim:

Park and Ride programs make the use of cars cheaper (A) and more convenient (B), which gives more people the incentive to ride cars (C), thus increasing traffic jams (D).

Now let’s expand this vertically:

Park and Ride programs make the use of cars cheaper (A) because parking in a parking garage in the outskirts is cheaper than parking in the city center (I), and because a public transport ticket is cheaper than the gas mileage in a city center with small and slow roads (II).

Park and Ride programs also make driving more convenient (B) because finding a safe parking spot at the Park and Ride facility is easier than in the city center (III).

Because it is cheaper and more convenient, it gives more people an incentive to use cars (C), which in turn means that more people who now use other forms of traffic will switch to cars (IV) and that more people will be able to move out of the town (V).

As a result, the number of cars on the road will increase, thus leading to more traffic jams (D).

Advanced argumentation: impacts

Our arguments should be relevant and significant. In other words, they should impact the topic we are discussing. Demonstrating the impact of an argument implies

1. setting up a criterion, and
2. seeing how our argument fits this criterion.

Why a criterion? If we want to claim that something is good or bad, we need first to establish an idea of what we consider good or bad. Good or bad for who? When? Where? In what context? This is where criteria come in. When crafting arguments, you must consider what goal or purpose makes your argument important.

Let’s continue following our argument about Park and Ride programs increasing traffic jams. By what criteria could this argument be important? We have several potential options:

1. cars in themselves are bad, because driving everywhere is stressful and tedious and lowers the quality of life, therefore reducing car use determines if something is good or bad;
2. environmental impact of traffic: is a policy hurting or helping the environment;
3. inefficient spending of public resources is principally unjustified because public resources come from tax-payers, who often have little say in how they are going to be used. This can only be justified if the use is best maximized to facilitate public good; therefore, is something an efficient or inefficient policy?

These are just three of the potentially countless ways we can establish some criteria by which we determine the importance of our argument. When picking what criteria we focus on, it is important to consider the context in which we make the argument.

Let us imagine two particular contexts in which this argument can be employed:

1. discussion on the topic of the efficiency of the EU Cohesion funds, or
2. discussion on climate change.

We can see how both discussions warrant different criteria and priorities. If we are discussing the efficient use of EU funding, the important consideration is what constitutes efficient use of funding and not cars. If we are discussing climate change, the environmental impact matters more.

There are no right or wrong answers when setting criteria. It is, however, important to be aware of what context we are making the argument in and what criteria we are choosing for it.

After you know what your criteria is, you must connect your argument to the criteria: you need to show why the mechanism that you demonstrate in the beginning of your argument leads to the fulfillment (or indeed not) of these criteria. You achieve this by ensuring your mechanism's explanation meets the criteria conditions. We can illustrate this with an example:

The fact that Park and Ride increases traffic jams is important, because its primary purpose is, in fact, the opposite, to reduce them. Furthermore, Park and Ride programs are often funded by the EU; we can deduce that they represent an inefficient use of EU money.

Setting up criteria means explaining whether some outcome is desirable — you need to ensure your mechanisms show why this outcome occurs. This sounds simple enough in practice, but most of the time, we are not actively aware of this — by knowing explicitly what criteria we are fulfilling and why those criteria matter, we can strengthen our arguments.

Select the topic with your students and have them construct complex arguments. Motionbase is a free debate motion resource you can consult for this purpose.

Set up (5 minutes)

Sort students into small groups, and distribute the topics among the group. You can pick any topic you want. Alternatively, you can use any of these:

We would ban 24-hour news.

We would impose the Fairness Doctrine on any news media that attracts a significant audience.

We do not support social media in unilaterally de-platforming politicians.

We support the media showing explicit content of war zones.

We, as individuals, would quit social media.

Preparation (20 minutes)

Groups work on an argument about their topic. They are free to pick their side. They should develop an argument, find as many different mechanisms as possible to prove it and identify what criteria it is fulfilling — and why.

Presentation (35 minutes)

Each group should present their argument. Only one student can do this, or they can divide the burden, for instance, having one student present the explanation section, another the example section, and yet another the impact section. Alternatively, they, for instance, present the vertical development of an independent reason supporting their argument — this can be up to you, but also to the students and their individual arrangements. After every group’s argument, you have the other students' comments. Some of the guiding questions you can help them with are:

• What are the different mechanisms in this argument? Are they independent from one another?
• Are the mechanisms well developed? Can you think of any ways to make them more detailed?
• What criteria does this argument fulfill? Is the importance of these criteria obvious, or does it need further explanation?
• Does the argument fulfill the criteria?