We like to think of argumentation like breathing, a natural, intuitive process.

Argumentation is more like dance.

We all have the capability of dancing because of our bodies (unless you're a future alien reading this who exists outside time—in which case, howdy). But by breaking down the individual movements of our limbs, learning to listen to a beat, and developing choreographies, we can drastically increase our dance ability.

Dancing argumentation makes us more open-minded, curious, and cooperative. Like a dancing duo mutually giving and taking, adapting to their partner and becoming stronger alongside them, good-spirited argumentation creates art with everyone involved. Each party will hopefully leave more informed, with better-fleshed thoughts, and more respectful of the other side.

In today’s society, this argumentation dance is something we’re sorely lacking.

Polarization is so rife the political spectrum has its own electromagnetic field, misinformation, and disinformation are more available than ever, and terrible argumentation is at the center of it all. Reading this article will give you the mindsets and methods you need to begin your dance into the world of argumentation or at least help you spot the bull crap other people pull on you. You’ll learn what an argument is, the types of argument, how to frame and conduct a debate, the psychology of convincing human emotional demons to change their mind, and the most common argumentative fallacies.

Whether arguing with your Uncle at a family reunion, debating in a professional tournament, or having a friendly discourse with your friend about why their dish cleaning is “sub-par,” argumentation is an essential skill.

For the last few years I’ve engaged in numerous arguments with random friends and strangers, as well as participating in Speech and Debate, and more recently Cornell Political Union. I’m by no means an expert. But this is my best effort to summarize and articulate what I’ve learned through my years of arguing.

Let’s dance into it.

What Is An Argument?

Seems like a mindnumbingly obvious question and yet the best questions often are. If we want to argue well, we need to understand exactly what an argument is in the first place. Arguments come in many varieties, but ultimately, every single one (good one at least) includes these four things:

• A Claim: what your arguing
• Evidence: reasoning and evidence supporting your claim
• Warrant: the unstated logical connection of evidence to claim
• Impact: why the argument should matter

For example, I believe people should be able to use psychedelics legally. People have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Liberty is a fundamental human right that improves people's meaning, growth, and happiness. Therefore, psychedelics should be legalized so people can improve their meaning, growth, and happiness.

In this argument, I claim people should be able to use psychedelics. My reasoning is essentially that humans have a right to liberty under the harm principle. The warrant is that psychedelics don’t violate the harm principle, so people should be able to use them. The impact is that psychedelics can improve people’s meaning, growth, and happiness, which is good for quality of life.

This is an example of one argument type in one argument structure: values. Arguing about decisions by considering values is the most common type of argument you’ll have because it’s the most open to interpretation. You might also argue about facts or truth through scientific or philosophical discourse, but this is not the type of argumentation we are dealing with today. The way science and philosophical discourse is underdone is entirely different to the way messy argumentation is done in the real world, even though both have their place.

With that being said, let's explore the myriad of argumentative types you can use to give you the maximum number of dance moves in your dancing argument repertoire. Knowing which type you or someone else is using is essential because each type has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Types of Argument

Deductive Arguments

Definition: Arguments that move from general principles to specific conclusions with absolute certainty (if premises are true)

Core Structure:

1. Major Premise (general rule)
2. Minor Premise (specific case)
3. Conclusion (logical result)

Example: The Gamer Tragedy

• Major Premise: All gamers who say “one more turn” always stay up past 3:00 A.M.
• Minor Premise: I just said “one more turn” in Civilization six
• Conclusion: My sleep quality will be terrible tonight

Strengths:

• When the premises are valid, the conclusion is guaranteed
• Clear logical structure
• Easy to verify reasoning

Weaknesses:

• Only as good as the premises
• Can be overly rigid
• May oversimplify complex realities

It’s worth mentioning there is a specific type of deductive argument called an Enthymeme. These arguments aren’t deductively valid but lend credence to conclusions through intuitive signs. For example, when thinking about whether to go to war with Sparta as Athens:

1. Sparta has a stronger army than Athens
2. Stronger armies tend to win wars
3. Therefore we shouldn’t go to war with Sparta

This claim isn’t definitely 100% true based on the premises, but it’s a sign we should avoid fighting. Often, an argument is won by stacking up a superior degree of enthymemes compared to your opponent rather than deductively proving them wrong.

Inductive Arguments

Definition: Arguments that move from specific observations to general conclusions based on probability

Core Structure:

1. Multiple specific observations
2. Pattern recognition
3. General conclusion

Example: The Gym Quitter Argument

• Observation 1: This gymgoer quit going to the gym after The New Year in February
• Observation 2: That gymgoer quit going to the gym after The New Year in February
• Observation 3: That other gymgoer quit going to the gym after The New Year in February
• Conclusion: Therefore, all New Year gymgoers probably quit going in February

Strengths:

• Useful for real-world reasoning
• Allows for new evidence
• Basis for scientific method

Weaknesses:

• Never 100% certain
• Can be disproven by single counterexample (like finding a single gymgoer who keeps going)
• Subject to sampling bias

Analogical Arguments

Definition: Arguments that draw meaningful parallels between two different situations or concepts to explain the unfamiliar through the familiar

Core Structure:

1. Identify a familiar concept/situation
2. Draw specific parallels to the target concept
3. Show how understanding one helps understand the other

Example: Managing a company is like conducting an orchestra

• Both coordinate many individuals
• Both require precise timing
• Both need different sections working in harmony
• Both aim for a cohesive final product

Strengths:

• Makes complex ideas accessible
• Helps people relate to new concepts
• Memorable and engaging

Weaknesses:

• Can break down if differences outweigh similarities
• Risk of superficial comparisons
• May oversimplify complex issues

Causal Arguments

Definition: Arguments that establish clear cause-and-effect relationships between events or conditions

Required Elements:

1. Cause precedes effect
2. Clear connection exists
3. Other potential causes ruled out (no confounding variables)

Example: Excessive social media use causes depression

• Timeline: Increased usage precedes symptoms
• Connection: Explains psychological mechanisms
  • Social comparison effects
  • Dopamine manipulation
• Controls for other factors:
  • General screen time
  • Pre-existing conditions

Strengths:

• Can predict outcomes
• Useful for problem-solving
• Based on observable evidence

Common Pitfall:

• Confusing correlation with causation
• Overlooking alternative causes
• Ignoring complex factor interactions​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Arguments from Origin

Definition: Arguments that evaluate something based on where it comes from, its history, or how it was created

Core Structure:

1. Identify the origin/source
2. Explain significance of the origin
3. Draw conclusions based on origin

Example: Bitcoin is more trustworthy than traditional currency

• Origin: Created through transparent code and decentralized consensus
• Traditional currency: Created by centralized banks with less transparency
• Therefore: Bitcoin's origin makes it more trustworthy—you should put your life savings into Bitcoin right now (and a little into my checking account donations accepted at the bottom of the article please and thank you).

Strengths:

• Can reveal important context
• Helpful for understanding biases
• Useful for authenticity claims

Weaknesses:

• Can commit genetic fallacy (assuming something is good/bad solely based on origin)
• Origins may be irrelevant to current value
• Can overlook evolution/changes over time

Arguments from Function

Definition: Arguments that evaluate something based on how well it serves its intended purpose or function

Core Structure:

1. Identify the intended function
2. Assess how well it performs that function
3. Draw conclusions based on performance

Example: Public libraries are valuable institutions

• Function: Provide free access to a quiet room where you can pretend you're being eloquent and productive through reading
• Performance:
  • Offer books, computers, and educational programs
  • Serve millions of people annually
  • Support literacy and lifelong procrastination
• Therefore: Libraries successfully fulfill their function and are valuable

Strengths:

• Practical and results-oriented
• Clear criteria for evaluation
• Focuses on real-world impact

Weaknesses:

• May oversimplify complex purposes
• Can ignore unintended benefits/drawbacks
• Might miss non-functional value (like symbolic or cultural significance)

Arguments by Abduction

Definition: Arguments that systematically list all possible options/explanations and eliminate ones that are impossible or unlikely, making one seem like the best answer

Core Structure:

1. List ALL possible options/explanations
2. Systematically disprove each alternative
3. Conclude remaining option must be correct

Example: Why did the car not start this morning?

• Possible causes:
  • You're a poor college student who can barely afford ramen noodles
  • Dead battery
  • Empty gas tank
  • Faulty starter
  • Broken alternator
  • Clogged fuel filter
• Elimination process:
  • Poor College Student: you have a sugar daddy so no
• Battery tested: working fine
  • Gas tank: 3/4 full
  • Starter: recently replaced
  • Alternator: tested working
  • Therefore: Must be the clogged fuel filter

Strengths:

• Methodical and thorough
• Clear logical progression
• Powerful when all options truly considered
• Effective for troubleshooting
• Helps audience follow reasoning

Weaknesses:

• Easy to miss possible options
• Can fall into the false dilemma fallacy
• Time-consuming to address all possibilities
• May oversimplify complex situations

Arguments from Chain Reasoning

Definition: Arguments that link multiple claims together in sequence, where each conclusion becomes the premise for the next step

Core Structure:

1. Initial premise
2. Series of logical steps
3. Each conclusion feeds into next premise
4. Final conclusion

Example: Why reading this article on argumentation will make you single

• Premise: You've started reading this article
• Chain:
  • Argumentation makes you analyze everything
  • Analyzing everything means questioning assumptions
  • Questioning assumptions means challenging your partner's statements
  • Challenging partner's statements leads to saying "Well, actually..." in every conversation
  • Saying "Well, actually..." leads to being insufferably right all the time
  • Being insufferably right leads to relationship death
• Conclusion: Therefore, reading this article = single life. Don’t worry, you can join me in sadness.

Strengths:

• Can connect distant ideas logically
• Shows clear reasoning path
• Good for complex causation
• Makes assumptions clear

Weaknesses:

• One broken link breaks chain
• Gets weaker with each step
• Can oversimplify complex relationships
• More steps = more chance of error
• Often ignores outside factors

Arguments from Authority

Definition: Arguments that support claims by citing credible experts, institutions, or authoritative sources

Core Structure:

1. Identify authoritative source
2. Present their relevant expertise/credentials
3. Share their position/findings
4. Connect to your argument

Example: Nuclear power is safe for large-scale energy production

• Authority: Nuclear Regulatory Commission data
• Credentials: Federal agency with 40+ years monitoring nuclear safety
• Position: Nuclear power has lowest death rate per kilowatt hour
• Connection: Therefore, nuclear power is statistically one of safest energy sources

Strengths:

• Adds credibility
• Provides expert backing
• Includes research/data support
• Saves time explaining complex topics

Weaknesses:

• Appeal to false authorities
• Cherry-picking experts
• Experts can be wrong

Argument from authority fallacy (assuming something is true solely because an authority said so)

Arguments from Principle

Definition: Arguments that appeal to fundamental moral, ethical, or philosophical principles to justify a position

Core Structure:

1. Establish core principle
2. Show its broad acceptance
3. Apply to current situation
4. Draw conclusion

Example: Free speech should protect offensive speech

• Principle: Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right
• Acceptance: Enshrined in constitutions worldwide
• Application: Offensive speech, while unpleasant, is still expression
• Conclusion: Therefore, offensive speech must be protected

Strengths:

• Appeals to shared values
• Provides moral foundation
• Transcends specific situations
• Creates consistent framework

Weaknesses:

• Principles may conflict
• Cultural differences in values
• Can be too abstract
• May ignore practical concerns
• Different interpretations of same principle​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Arguments from Precedent

Definition: Arguments that use past examples, decisions, or historical cases to justify current positions or predict outcomes

Core Structure:

1. Identify relevant past case/example
2. Show similarity to current situation
3. Explain past outcome/decision
4. Apply lessons to present

Example: Social media should be regulated like traditional media

• Precedent: Radio/TV regulation in 1930s
  • Faced similar issues (misinformation, market power)
  • Led to FCC creation
  • Resulted in public interest standards
• Application: Similar problems need similar solutions
• Therefore: Social media needs comparable regulation

Strengths:

• Shows real-world evidence
• Demonstrates what works/doesn't
• Builds on established wisdom
• More concrete than theory

Weaknesses:

• Different contexts/times
• Past mistakes shouldn't guide future
• Cherry-picking examples
• May ignore new factors

Arguments from Consequence

Definition: Arguments that evaluate a position based on its potential outcomes or implications

Core Structure:

1. Identify proposed action/position
2. Predict likely consequences
3. Evaluate outcomes
4. Draw conclusion based on desirability of outcomes

Example: We should ban unethical animal farming practices

• Predicted Consequences:
  • Less animal suffering in aggregate
  • Less Kentucky Fried Chicken (unfortunate)
  • Less efficient food practices so potentially less food for humans for total animal suffering would be lower
• Therefore: Banning unethical animal farming is on the whole good

Strengths:

• Forward-thinking
• Practical focus
• Risk assessment
• Appeals to common sense

Weaknesses:

• Speculation/uncertainty
• Can be fear-mongering
• Unforeseen variables
• Complex causation chains
• Difficulty proving predictions​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Arguments from Reductio ad Absurdum

Definition: A type of consequence argument that disproves a position by showing it leads to absurd or impossible conclusions when followed to its logical end.

Core Structure:

1. Take opponent's position
2. Follow its logic to extreme conclusion
3. Show this conclusion is absurd/impossible
4. Therefore original position must be flawed

Example: Arguing against "all killing is murder"

• Starting Position: "All killing is murder and therefore wrong"
• Logical Extensions:
  • Killing bacteria with antibiotics is murder
  • Killing plants for food is murder
  • Killing cancer cells is murder
  • Your immune system commits murder daily
• Absurd Conclusion: Living itself becomes impossible without being a murderer
• Therefore: Original position that "all killing is murder" must be flawed

Strengths:

• Powerful logical tool
• Often memorable
• Can expose hidden flaws
• Makes abstract concrete
• Effective at showing contradictions
• Can be humorous

Weaknesses:

• Can seem dismissive
• Risk of straw man fallacy
• May oversimplify
• Could ignore nuance
• Might miss valid middle ground
• Can appear mocking

Arguments from Process

Definition: Arguments that focus on the feasibility, efficiency, or superiority of implementation methods rather than the end goal itself

Core Structure:

1. Identify goal/proposal
2. Analyze implementation process
3. Either:
   • Show why process won't work (Process Criticism)
   • OR show why your process is better (Process Comparison)
4. Draw conclusions about entire proposal based on process analysis

**Example: Universal Basic Income won't work

• Proposal: Give every citizen $1000 monthly
• Process Problems:
  • Cost calculation: $330 billion monthly for US
  • Distribution system overwhelmed
  • Verification of eligibility complex
  • Fraud prevention difficult
  • It’s not giving all the money to me which is obviously unfair
• Therefore: Good idea, but practically unfeasible

Strengths:

• Practical focus
• Details matter
• Reveals hidden problems
• Tests real-world viability
• Often overlooked by opponents

Weaknesses:

• Can ignore merit of end goal
• May be overly bureaucratic
• Risk of paralysis by analysis
• Could miss creative solutions
• May underestimate adaptation/innovation

Arguments from Thought Experiments

Definition: Arguments that use hypothetical scenarios designed to isolate and test specific principles, moral intuitions, or logical consequences

Core Structure:

1. Create controlled hypothetical scenario
2. Remove real-world complications
3. Focus on key principle/question
4. Draw conclusions about principle from scenario

Example: The Mona Lisa Problem

• Scenario Setup:
  • Runaway trolley heading toward five people
  • Can pull lever to divert to different track
  • Original Mona Lisa on other track
  • Must choose: do nothing (five die) or act (Original Mona Lisa gone)
• Purpose:
  • Tests utilitarianism vs deontology
  • Explores action vs inaction morality
  • Questions moral math
  • Examines responsibility in indirect harm

Famous Examples:

• Veil of Ignorance (social justice)
• Brain in a Vat (reality/knowledge)
• Chinese Room (AI consciousness)
• Ship of Theseus (identity)
• Ticking Time Bomb (torture ethics)

Strengths:

• Isolates key principles
• Removes distracting factors
• Makes abstract concrete
• Tests moral intuitions
• Reveals hidden assumptions
• Memorable and engaging

Weaknesses:

• May be too simplified
• Can ignore real complexities
• Risk of unrealistic scenarios
• May lead to false equivalencies
• Could miss practical concerns
• Sometimes too abstract

You can also use thought experiments personalized to the person you are arguing with. For example, asking them how they would feel differently if they had X social identity, or the world were X way, etc. This often gets them out of their own narrow perspective.

Arguments from Emotion

Definition: Arguments that appeal to feelings, values, and emotional responses rather than pure logic or facts.

Core Structure:

1. Identify target emotion
2. Create emotional connection
3. Link feeling to desired action/belief
4. Drive emotional response to conclusion

Example: We must act on climate change now

• Build fear: "Our children will inherit a dying world"
• Create guilt: "Every day we wait, another species goes extinct"
• Inspire hope: "We can still make a difference if we act today"
• Drive action: "Join us in saving our planet's future"

Strengths:

• Highly motivating
• Memorable
• Connects personally
• Drives immediate action
• Often more persuasive than logic
• Taps into human nature

Weaknesses:

• Can be manipulative
• May ignore facts
• Short-term impact
• Potential backlash
• Risk of emotional burnout
• Can cloud judgment

Arguments from Actor

Definition: Arguments that predict or evaluate someone's likely future behavior or decisions based on their past actions, character, or established patterns

Core Structure:

1. Identify relevant past behavior/patterns
2. Show consistency in actor's history
3. Explain why pattern will likely continue
4. Draw conclusions about future actions

Example: I will likely eat far too much for Thanksgiving

• Past Actions:
  • I always eat too much in Holidays
  • Thanksgiving is a time for excess
• Character Analysis:
  • I’m weak
  • I like mashed potatoes
  • I don’t love myself
• Therefore: Five ponds of weight gain is expected

Strengths:

• Based on observable patterns
• People tend to be consistent
• Uses concrete evidence
• Often good predictor
• Helps in strategic planning

Weaknesses:

• People can change
• Can over-value person over situation
• May oversimplify motives
• Can ignore new factors
• Risk of confirmation bias
• Might miss internal changes

Knowing the various types of argument can help you construct and dismantle arguments based on their strengths and weaknesses. But it doesn’t inherently make for a great argument. That’s what we will learn how to do in the next section.

What Makes A Great Argument? (No Logical Fallacies Were Harmed In The Making Of This Section)

Unlike humans (unless you lived anytime before the 2000s) not all arguments are made equal. However, there are a number of good argument principles which in general will strengthen your argument regardless of what you’re arguing.

Firstly, great arguments have good support: the evidence for the argument is truthful and accurate.

Generally, this means it comes from a trusted and experienced authority—preferably a primary one—or a well-studied scientific study. This is traditionally called Ethos, as you learned from history's favorite callout in English class—the Greeks.

It should check out probabilistically as well. Don’t mistake correlation for causation, make the prosecutors fallacy, or do so much more we can’t dive into in this article; it would be longer than my play time in Minecraft.

A great argument is valid: the reasons logically lead to the conclusions.

In other words, if the evidence and reasoning are true, they would prove or support the claim the argument is making. This is traditionally called Logos from, you guessed it—The Greeks!

Great arguments have linguistic consistency: The key terms are defined clearly and consistently throughout.

If a definition changes or you use a word in more than one way, it can weaken your argument by making it confusing.

Great arguments are precise.

They use specific, well-defined terms and avoid vagueness. Often, they have specific time frames, quantities, limitations, or conditions.

Great arguments have small logic chains.

That means the larger the number of times the argument says X leads to Y, the worse the argument. Firstly, it gives more places where the argument could fall apart if any one of those chains were invalidated. Secondly, it makes it less and less likely the evidence and reasoning actually lead to the conclusion because of the complexity of the chain. And thirdly, it just looks worse like a row of spaghetti noodles that cooked together and nobody wants to eat.

Great arguments are intuitively strong and grip at our heartstrings.

This is controversial as many people would say argumentation in its perfect form shouldn’t rely on emotion. To that, I would say—no human acts like that. The fact is we live in a world ruled by passion, and great arguments should leverage this fact by being intuitively strong upon first hearing them. Of course, the realm between emotion and outright emotional manipulation is short and should be kept in mind (as we will get to later). This is traditionally called Pathos by no, not the, yes, The Greeks!

Great arguments minimize assumption.

Its unavoidable assumptions must be made in your argument—it’s the nature of using a finite amount of language. However, great arguments should minimize the number that can be pointed out inside of them.

Great arguments address counterarguments inside of them.

The best way to deflate the umph of your opponent's counter-arguments is to address them before they even say them. Whenever constructing an argument, ask yourself how someone with the opposite view might respond and respond to their response prematurely.

Great arguments are relevant.

They connect back to the original claim or overarching point you are trying to make.

If you have even a few of these things in your argument it’s bound to be better than most arguments people use. We’ve learned different argument types, and what makes a good argument. But what about actually constructing them?

The Art Of Constructing Arguments Using The BUILD Framework

When faced with a resolution or problem that needs arguing, many people jump straight to making points without a systematic approach. This often leads to scattered, ineffective argumentation. So I made the aptly named, BUILD framework, to provide a structured method for constructing compelling arguments.

When constructing an argument, you’re not going to literally consciously go through each of these steps in writing. It might be useful to do when you’re first learning how it works. The purpose of this framework is to make you my childhood progeny, Bob The Builder, and provide a scaffolding for what you would do in ideal, if you had infinite time. When constructing your argument you might vaguely follow each of these steps.

Here’s how it works.

B - Break Down The Components

First, dissect the resolution (issue you’re arguing about) into its key components:

• Core claims
• Key terms needing definition
• Assumptions being made
• Stakeholders involved
• Context/background needed

Example: "Social media companies should be legally liable for misinformation on their platforms"

• Core claim: Legal liability for misinformation
• Key terms: "Misinformation", "legally liable", "social media companies"
• Assumptions: Misinformation can be defined, companies can control content
• Stakeholders: Tech companies, users, government, society
• Context: Current regulation, past cases, technical capabilities

U - Understand The Angles

Map out different approaches to arguing the resolution:

• Causal arguments (What leads to what?)
• Value arguments (What matters most?)
• Policy arguments (What should be done?)
• Practical arguments (What's feasible?)
• Comparative arguments (What are the alternatives?)

For each angle, consider:

• Strengths/weaknesses
• Available evidence
• Likely counterarguments
• Emotional resonance

I - Integrate Multiple Argument Types

Layer different argument types for maximum impact:

1. Start with a foundational logical argument
2. Support with empirical evidence
3. Add emotional/value-based appeals
4. Address practical considerations
5. Anticipate and preempt counterarguments

Example sequence:
6. Deductive argument about platform responsibility
7. Statistical evidence of harm from misinformation
8. Value argument about public good
9. Process argument about implementation
10. Preemptive response to free speech concerns

My favorite way to structure this is by writing out taglines for each of my arguments in bold. Underneath those taglines I have evidence supporting that point. Underneath the evidence I have potential counter arguments from the other side and underneath that I have my response to those counterarguments.

This is a tagline for one of my arguments.

• This is evidence for the argument up above.
  • CA: this is a counterargument from the other side.
    • This is my counterargument to their counterargument.

Structuring your notes in this way will make it much easier to give your point once you are talking.

L - Link Arguments Strategically

Create a compelling narrative flow:
11. Opening argument: Hook attention, establish credibility
12. Building arguments: Each strengthens the last
13. Pivot points: Transition smoothly between ideas
14. Supporting evidence: Reinforce key claims
15. Conclusion: Tie everything together

Consider:

• Logical progression
• Emotional journey
• Building momentum
• Strategic concessions
• Memorable framework

D - Develop Fallback Positions

Create layers of defense:

• Primary argument (ideal position)
• Secondary arguments (fallback positions)
• Minimal acceptable position
• Red lines (points you won't concede)

Example hierarchy:
16. Full platform liability for all misinformation
17. Liability for specific types of harmful misinformation
18. Required content moderation systems
19. Enhanced transparency requirements
20. Red line: Platforms must have some responsibility

So, we’ve learned how to construct great arguments. But how about destroying an argument—pummeling it into the ground?

The Art of Dismantling Arguments Using The CRACK Framework

The only thing more satisfying than building an argument, is blowing the ever living shit out of it. That’s why I made the aptly named CRACK framework for argument dismantling. Here’s how it works:

The CRACK Method

C - Check the Core

• Identify main claim
• Find central premise
• Spot key assumptions
• Example: They claim "Social media causes depression"
  • Core assumption: Correlation equals causation
  • Maybe depressed people just use social media more?

R - Review the Reasoning

• Track logic chain
• Find weak links
• Spot logical leaps
• Example: "Violent video games cause violence"
  • Link 1: Games contain violence
  • Link 2: People play violent games
  • Missing Link: How does virtual violence translate to real violence?
  • Counter: Japan has highest gaming rate, lowest violence rate

A - Attack the Architecture

• Question framework
• Challenge definitions
• Dispute criteria
• Example: "Capitalism is evil"
  • What defines capitalism?
  • What's the measure of evil?
  • Are we talking pure capitalism or mixed economy?

C - Counter the Claims

• Provide counterexamples
• Present alternative explanations
• Offer contradicting evidence
• Example: "Everyone should learn to code"
  • Counter: Many successful people don't code
  • Alternative: Maybe learn problem-solving instead?
  • Evidence: Many coding jobs being automated

K - Keep it Kind

• Stay respectful
• Acknowledge good points
• Focus on ideas not person
• Example: "That's an interesting perspective, though I see it differently..."

So you know how to build an argument like Bob The Builder and how to blow it up like the child cartoon hater you are. Let’s go through an actual debate using what we’ve learned so far.

Going Through An Actual Debate: A Study In Constructing And Dismantling Arguments

Framing

Any good debate starts with framing before entering the actual debate process.

Think of framing like mindfully deciding where to put the windows in your house. Ideally you want it overlooking some nature to give you some mindful health benefits or if you’re like me, looking at some squirrels so you have a excuse for why you got distracted during your writ—-.

What I say next might seem forced and artificial, but if you do the work beforehand, it will ensure a much better-flowing and more effective debate. Sometimes effective framing can completely undermine your dance opponents argument.

The goal of framing is to help everyone understand how the debate will be understood. The first step is to state as succinctly and clearly as possible what you disagree about: the resolution.

For example, my resolution might be: As it’s implemented now, social media is a net negative for society's mental health.

Once we have a clear resolution we can set a framework for the debate. Generally, in a formal British parliamentary debate, this will be the job of the “government,” but in a casual one, both people could flesh this out together. A framework includes four things:

• Definitions
• Context
• Value
• Criterion

Importantly, you can disagree on all four of these things in which case you can argue over them instead.

Giving definitions involves defining any vague or critical words in the resolution.

In the above example those words might be:

• Social media
• Net negative
• Society

Next we must define the context.

This is the realm the debate is going on in. When thinking about how to define the context, try and define it in a way which will favor your arguments and disfavor the other side, in a reasonable way of course. For example, in a debate about social media you might specifically choose America as the context rather than some other countries with better regulations because you know it will favor your arguments about social medias negatives. In addition, you might make a case that in this debate social medias effect on quality of life is the main focal point we should look at rather than connection because once again it favors your case.

This ties into the third part of framing, defining the value, that is, the highest good both sides are arguing about.

Some typical values include:

1. Justice
2. Liberty/Freedom
3. Democracy
4. Human Rights
5. Morality/Ethics
6. Equality
7. Individual Rights
8. The Common Good/Public Welfare
9. Human Dignity
10. Security/Safety
11. Quality of Life
12. Progress/Development
13. Social Contract
14. Autonomy
15. Sovereignty

In our resolution, quality of life would be a good value.

This informs the last part of the framework, our criterion—essentially the standard or measuring stick used to determine whether we're achieving the value in the debate.

It's the bridge between your arguments and your value—the "how we know" we're upholding the value.

Possible Criteria for the value of quality of life as applied to social media are:

• Minimizing psychological harm (we measure quality of life by reduction in mental health problems)
• Maximizing positive relationships (we measure quality of life by the quality of human connections)
• Self-actualization potential (we measure quality of life by people's ability to reach their full potential)

What do you do if you feel the definition, context, value, or criteria aren’t well set up? You can challenge them. You can argue, for example, that quality of life is less important to society regarding social media than connection is. Or you could say that mental health concerns are more concerning than physical health ones. You just have to make a good argument for it.

Sometimes this can be the most effective argumentation strategy of all. If the proposition makes all their arguments about why social media is bad for quality of life and than you effectively explain why the connection it gives is more important, it can undermine their arguments.

Doing all these steps can be painstaking, but your argument will be much better. So many disagreements come from disagreements in definition, disclarity over what you’re actually arguing about, and confusion over how you assess you’re getting closer to a closure.

Now that we understand how to frame, let’s move through an actual example debate using everything we’ve learned.

The Actual Debate

Resolution: A fully amnesiac proven murderer with a very low chance of ever remembering their murder doesn’t deserve to go to prison in America.

Definitions:

• Amnesiac: lost all memories of planning, or enacting the murder of any kind
• Go to prison: serve the sentence they would get as a normal non-amnesiac person
• Deserve: Morally, they should go to prison

Context: American prison system.

Values:

• Justice

Criteria:

• What helps fairly punish and reintegrate criminals into society to lessen crime?
• What is just in regards to those related to the murdered?

Arguments For Why They Shouldn’t Go To Prison

1. You’re treading on the value of innocent until proven guilty. An amnesiac who has lost all memories of planning a crime or enacting it has essentially not committed the crime. Someone who has not committed a crime is innocent. Therefore, putting them in prison goes against the value of innocent until proven guilty, which is a cardinal virtue of our American justice system and is not a fair punishment.
2. Your failing to do the purpose of putting people into prison in the first place
   • The major purpose of prison is to decentivize crime, and rehabilitate those who have offended so they won’t commit crime again. Since the person is essentially innocent, you are failing in both these respects, and this is not helping them be fairly punished or rehabilitated. If you have a concern, they are the type of person who might do a crime, considering they are still quite similar to the person who did the crime outside of not remembering doing it, recommend them to mental institutions or somewhere else, not prison.
3. The relatives of the murdered wouldn’t be getting much in vengeance anyways
   • Explain the situation to the relatives and they would likely feel bad putting someone essentially innocent in prison. Therefore it wouldn’t be making them feel better anyway.

While you’ve been giving your arguments, your opponent dancer—if they are good at least—has been writing down your arguments and systematically counterarguing them for their response.

Arguments For Why They Should Go To Prison

1. Response to "innocent until proven guilty" argument:
   • The person has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt through evidence, which satisfies the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Legal responsibility is about actions taken, not current memory of those actions. We still put drunkards in jail even if they blacked out and don’t remember doing the crime—why treat amnesiacs differently?
   • If we accepted memory loss as negating guilt, it would create a dangerous precedent where criminals could attempt to induce amnesia to escape justice. Criminals might get away with crime by simply stating they don’t remember doing it.
   • Memory loss does not negate the fact that their body and mind committed the crime. They might commit this crime or something similar again in the future because their bodies and minds led to it. Putting them in prison safeguards against this.
2. Response to "failing the purpose of prison" argument:
   • While rehabilitation is one purpose of prison, others include public safety, deterrence of others, and retributive justice. The amnesiac state doesn't change that:
     • Public safety is still served by containing someone who has demonstrated capacity for murder
     • General deterrence still works as others see that memory loss won't excuse crimes
     • Retributive justice acknowledges that regardless of memory, there was still a victim whose life was taken by this person's actions
   • Their inability to remember doesn't guarantee they won't reoffend - the underlying personality and decision-making patterns that led to murder may still be present
3. Response to "relatives wouldn't get vengeance" argument:
   • Justice for victims' families isn't just about emotional satisfaction or vengeance. It's about upholding the principle that taking a life has consequences, regardless of the perpetrator's current mental state
   • Many families might feel additional trauma knowing their loved one's killer walks free due to memory loss while their loved one remains dead
   • The focus on victims' families potentially "feeling bad" about imprisonment ignores broader societal needs for justice and consistency in law enforcement​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

This debate could continue for much longer, but the point has been made. This is what a debate could look like in real life, using all we have learned about framing and making strong arguments. Ultimately, I believe The YES PRISON position would likely win this debate for several key reasons:

1. More comprehensive understanding of criminal justice purposes
2. Stronger philosophical grounding regarding identity and responsibility
3. Better consideration of systemic implications
4. More thorough analysis of justice beyond just rehabilitation

The NO PRISON side makes some valid points about rehabilitation and the unique nature of amnesia cases, but ultimately fails to:

• Address the full scope of criminal justice purposes
• Resolve the problematic precedent their position would set
• Adequately consider broader societal implications

This begs, the question: how do you weigh a debate after it’s done. What led my thinking about the YES prison side winning above?

A Framework for Weighing Debates

When evaluating who "won" a debate, we need a systematic approach beyond just gut feeling. This framework provides a structured way to analyze and weigh arguments to determine which side presented the stronger case overall.

Every argument should be evaluated across five key dimensions:

1. Impact (I)

Impact measures the significance of what would happen if the argument is true.

Components of Impact:

• Magnitude: How big is the effect?
• Scope: How many people/entities are affected?
• Duration: How long do effects last?
• Reversibility: Can effects be undone?

2. Probability (P)

Probability assesses how likely the argument's claims are to be true and its impacts to occur.

Factors Affecting Probability:

• Quality of evidence
• Logical consistency
• Number of assumptions
• Historical precedent
• Expert consensus
• Follows good probability theory

3. Evidence Quality (E)

Evidence quality evaluates the strength and reliability of supporting evidence.

Factors Affecting Evidence Quality

• Primary source, secondary source, tertiary source?
• Expert Opinion
• Scientific
• When Anecdotal represents a larger population

4. Logical Strength (L)

Logical strength assesses the validity and soundness of the argument's reasoning.

Evaluation Criteria:

• Valid logical structure
• Shorter the logic chain the better
• Clear causal mechanisms
• Few/reasonable assumptions
• Addressed counterarguments
• Internal consistency

5. Relevance (R)

Relevance measures how directly the argument addresses the core resolution and chosen framework.

So, you’ve learned everything regarding the different argument types, what makes a great argument, how to construct an argument, dismantle it, frame a debate, and weight it after it has occurred. But we haven’t taken into account an essential aspect of argumentation—we’re arguing against other people. And that means we must learn the psychology of arguing.

The Art Of Arguing Against Emotional Demons (Other People)

Unfortunately, we live on a planet full of beings made of 70% water, 20% irrational emotion, and 10% sexual tension, commonly called “human beings.”

To upgrade our argumentation abilities, we must understand the psychology of arguing with others—not just how to craft a good argument but also how we determine what is worth arguing, how we give that argument, and how we navigate conflicts that come along the way.

The knowledge below will be invaluable in helping you argue in the messiness of the real world. It’s worth mentioning all the tips below are for ideal circumstances. In reality, most arguing doesn’t look this formal or organized because we’re not skilled arguers, we know the other person well, we’re just plane lazy, or something else. Regardless, implementing even a bit of this will help you become much more skilled at arguing with others.

Knowing your audience is the first and most important step before getting into any argument.

Know Your Audience

Sun Tzu claims in his Art Of War that knowing your enemy is essential because battles are often won before they are fought.

The same is true of argumentation.

What are their underlying beliefs and values? What do they fear and want? What culture do they most resonate with? What’s their religion or political leaning? Age? Gender? Race? Class? Etc.

One wouldn’t want to assume materialism in an argument with a Christian.

One would be less inclined to talk about the future with an older person because younger people tend to focus more on the future, while older tend to want to preserve what's good about the present.

One would be less inclined to use anger as an emotional spark with a Buddhist Monk because they likely won’t get angry.

Doing even a modicum of research on who you are arguing with and how that should influence your strategy will give you massive strides in your argumentation abilities.

The next most important step in arguing is setting up the argument. One of my favorite frameworks for doing so is RISA.

The RISA Framework For Starting An Argument

Some arguments are set up and scheduled beforehand, like in debates. But many of our arguments happen in everyday life. In these situations, the RISA framework from Harvard’s former debate coach, Bo Seo, is a gamechanger.

We’ve all been in that situation. A disagreement comes up in conversation. Perhaps it’s innocuous, like where to eat for dinner, or more extreme, like one’s beliefs on abortion.

We get an icky feeling as the disagreement swelters up as butterflies in our stomach. Should we argue with them?

If yes, this is what the RISA framework would have us do:

• R: Recognize there is something you disagree about
• I: Ask, is this important enough to argue over?
• S: Specify together what exactly you disagree about. Make it small enough you could reasonably argue over it.
• A: Align yourself in arguing about that in a reasonable way.

Before beginning to actually argue it can be helpful to ask two questions.

Firstly, what causes you to believe that?

This will often give you an emotional response in the form of a story. That’s great because it will inform you about how you should argue. If they give an emotional response, don’t respond in a cold, calculating way. They will feel invalidated and offended.

Secondly, what would it take to change your mind?

Gold question. Many people enter a debate without knowing if the other side is interested in changing. If they answer this question by saying they won’t concede on any point or the point they will concede is absurd, strongly consider if it’s even worth debating. Perhaps it still is if you're an argument-hungry monster like I am. But often, it’s a great way to avoid wasting time.

Once you’ve answered these two questions there are some other principles you should take into account for having a reasonable argument.

How To Have An Argument That Doesn’t Lead To You Killing Each Other

When we think of arguing, we tend to picture two people screaming at each other in bloodcurdling fury. It doesn’t have to be this way. If both parties (or even just one!) have some basic mindsets and preventative measures going into the argument, you can avoid a cat fight.

Firstly, find common ground.

No, don’t just stand on the same plot of land, but find an aspect of the issue you agree on. Perhaps you’re arguing over the death penalty. Both of you can agree on your care for trying to create a system that feels most just, even if you have different methods for doing so. Having this piece of agreement can make the disagreement less tense.

Secondly, listen!

When arguing, it can be too easy to get caught entirely in thinking about our own arguments; we forget to even listen to the other person or respect them at all.

Active listening while arguing means not only hearing what the other person says but truly listening to it. The best way to show this is through mirroring. Mirroring involves saying what the other person says back at them in your own words. Of course, this isn’t required every single time—and many of my friends tell me can be forced and annoying—to which I say: “it sounds like you’re feel annoyed.” But in cases where you aren’t sure of what the other side means or said, mirroring can help you understand.

Thirdly, separate the argument from the person.

Of course, in the heat of the moment, you might want to reach over and start strangling the other person mid-sentence. But that doesn’t help anyone. You might not respect their point, but treating them like heathens for having it does nobody any good. If they feel animosity they won’t want to debate. And there’s always the chance they’re playing devil's advocate just for the lols.

Fourthly, steelman the other person.

Steelmanning involves taking the other person's argument and making it into its best possible version. Strawmanning, in contrast, involves taking their argument, making it falsely worse in some way, and then proving that wrong.

Strawmanning might win you a debate in the short term, but it’s not an effective long-term strategy. If you intend to argue for the rest of your life, steelmanning will lead not only to better debates, but greater respect from both parties. Imagine how you would feel if the other side purposefully made your argument better! And then, they still disproved it.

I, for one, would be flabbergasted.

Fifthly, change the tense.

If you find an argument spinning out of control, try switching the tense.

To pin blame on the cheese thief, use the past tense. To get someone to believe that abortion is a terrible sin, use the present tense. The future, though, is the best tense for getting peace and quiet in the living room. The future feels farther away, less blameworthy, less graspable, and therefore doesn’t get people as riled up.

Sixthly, admit when the other side has a point.

Often, you won’t feel the other side has said anything of convincing value. Even if they haven’t, pointing out a strength of their argument will change the entire mood of the argument. It’s no longer a war, but a dance, where you are both willing to give and take. Who knows? Maybe they’ll change their mind even a little.

Using Emotion In Arguments

Humans are emotional creatures, and even if we don’t think we are, emotions influence us in every argument. The trick is not to run from them like the plague, nor rely on them full heartedly. It’s to understand their purpose so you can leverage them and protect yourself against them from others.

Two questions you can ask yourself to understand the power of using emotions:

• What actions do emotions cause?
• How do you bring those emotions about?

Here's how different emotions function in arguments:

Anger

• Sparks: Immediate action, confrontation
• Comes from: Sense of injustice, violation of values
• Use case: Motivating change against clear wrongs
• Warning: Can lead to rash decisions, damaged relationships
• Example: "Every minute we wait, another species goes extinct"

Fear

• Sparks: Vigilance or retreat
• Comes from: Sense of danger, uncertainty
• Use case: Highlighting serious risks
• Warning: Can paralyze or cause panic
• Example: "If we don't act on climate change now..."

Friendliness

• Sparks: Mutual interest, cooperation
• Comes from: Honesty, humor, kindness
• Use case: Building bridges, finding common ground
• Warning: Can seem insincere if overdone
• Example: "I used to think exactly the same way until..."

Calmness

• Sparks: Reflection, careful consideration
• Comes from: Reduced sense of threat
• Use case: Complex or sensitive topics
• Warning: Might not create urgency
• Example: "Let's think this through together..."

Pride

• Sparks: Desire to maintain standards, defend positions
• Comes from: Achievement, identity connection
• Use case: Appealing to someone's self-image
• Warning: Can trigger defensiveness
• Example: "As someone who values excellence..."

Guilt

• Sparks: Desire to make amends, change behavior
• Comes from: Recognition of wrongdoing
• Use case: Promoting responsibility
• Warning: Can create resentment if manipulative
• Example: "How will we explain this to future generations?"

Hope

• Sparks: Motivation, optimism, buy-in
• Comes from: Visible path to improvement
• Use case: Inspiring positive change
• Warning: Must be realistic to be credible
• Example: "We've solved bigger problems before..."

Curiosity

• Sparks: Engagement, openness to new ideas
• Comes from: Interesting puzzles, mysteries
• Use case: Getting people to consider alternatives
• Warning: Can distract from main point
• Example: "But have you ever wondered why..."

Shame

• Sparks: Desire to hide or change
• Comes from: Public exposure of flaws
• Use case: Social norm enforcement
• Warning: Often creates backlash
• Example: "What would others think if they knew..."

Empathy

• Sparks: Understanding, compassion
• Comes from: Shared experiences, storytelling
• Use case: Building connection, understanding
• Warning: Can be seen as manipulative
• Example: "Imagine if this happened to you..."

Excitement

• Sparks: Enthusiasm, engagement
• Comes from: New possibilities, opportunities
• Use case: Building momentum for change
• Warning: Can seem overhyped
• Example: "Think of what we could achieve..."

Frustration

• Sparks: Desire for change, action
• Comes from: Blocked goals, repeated failures
• Use case: Highlighting need for new approaches
• Warning: Can lead to giving up
• Example: "We've tried everything else..."

Nostalgia

• Sparks: Desire to preserve or return
• Comes from: Positive past experiences
• Use case: Defending traditions, values
• Warning: Can resist necessary change
• Example: "Remember when things were..."

Confusion

• Sparks: Desire for clarity
• Comes from: Complexity, unclear information
• Use case: Creating openness to explanation
• Warning: Can lead to disengagement
• Example: "This might seem complicated..."

Best Practices for Using Emotions:

1. Match Intensity

• Scale emotional appears to situation
• Don't oversell or undersell
• Read audience's emotional state

1. Balance Emotions

• Mix positive and negative
• Don't rely on single emotion
• Create emotional arcs

1. Stay Authentic

• Use genuine feelings
• Share real experiences
• Avoid manipulation

1. Time Properly

• Build emotional momentum
• Know when to pull back
• Read emotional energy

1. Consider Culture

• Different cultures express differently
• Respect emotional norms
• Adapt approach accordingly

Even with an understanding of emotions we may still struggle to convince people who don’t agree with us at all. For that, we must dive into the psychology of arguing with someone entirely opposite to you.

Psychology Of Convincing Someone Who Doesn’t Agree With Your Point At All

A few weeks ago I was arguing with a Christian about the existence of God, finding meaning in a meaningless Universe, and the nature of suffering. You know, typical Saturday afternoon sort of conversations.

For most of the conversation I could tell I wasn’t getting through to him. In an offhand comment I mentioned my experience dating a Christian woman for a month and how much she’d taught me about the faith. He underwent a complete shift, relaxing his hands, and seeming more attentive to my arguments. While I didn’t convince him entirely of my points, he seemed thoughtful exiting the conversation.

This is the power of developing Ethos.

Before I mentioned her, I was another one of those annoying atheists who didn’t have any perspective, any taste, for the beauty of Christianity. After mentioning her, however, I became, even in a subtle way, part of the in-group of Christianity.

The reality is so much of argumentation in the real world isn’t just about making good arguments—it’s about making the person you are arguing against respect you enough to appreciate those arguments. Through learning some core principles of human psychology, you can argue against people who don’t agree with your point at all to a much greater degree by building Ethos.

Building Ethos With Your Audience

Ethos is all about creating a sense of authority, belonging, and respect among your audience. You need to show you not only know what you’re talking about, but you’re the person to be talking about it.

The first major component of Ethos is adapting what you dress in for your audience.

Let’s say you’re trying to convince some Christians God does’nt exist. So you show up to their church, dressed in a snazzy extravagant golden suit… In the house of God, they are expecting more temperance and modesty. The only thing you’re going to convince them of is your God is wealth.

In the opposite vein, if you are trying to argue in a corporate setting, don’t wear your workout clothes. They’ll feel you aren’t taking them seriously and downplay your arguments no matter what they are.

A second major component of Ethos is adapting how you talk to your audience.

If you’re speaking to academics, don’t use common everyday slang language. In contrast, if you’re speaking to a high schooler, feel free to use that language—without feeling forced of course, Slay.

A third major component of Ethos is aligning your values with those of your audience.

Essentially, this is different from openly lying about what you value. If you want to become one of those sneezy Sophist value trodden bum buckets you can check out Machiavelli’s The Prince. It’s not about lying about what you value but shifting the way you express your values to fit more in line with your audience.

For example, let’s say you’re an animal lover trying to convince someone who’s favorite holiday is Taco Tuesday to stop eating meat. If you come in too strong, stating how animal suffering matters too, and the person should feel very bad about what they have been doing all their life, you might make them angry enough to make you the meat in their next taco.

Instead, it would likely work much better to talk about how difficult it was going through the moral shift to veganism yourself when you did. How you loved the taste of meat, but became more and more desensitized to it as you thought about the suffering the animals were going through in the farms. How for months you tried to convince yourself it was okay, but ultimately couldn’t validate it any more.

Talking like this makes you feel much more in tune with your audience and makes you come across as impartial—caring more about the interests of the audience rather than your own. Make it seem as if your conclusion was the only inevitable one a reasonable person could come to, even if you, like them, didn’t want to believe it at first.

The last major component of Ethos is adapting what knowledge/skills you show to your audience.

It’s all about building authority after all. In the same way you tailor your resume to each job you apply to, tailor what knowledge/skills you push forth to who you talk to. Ideally, someone else will do the bragging for you, but if you have to, a humble brag isn’t the worst thing in the world.

For example, if you’re talking to a teacher about effective learning strategies, discussing your experience teaching in tennis summer camp while imperfect will likely come across a lot better than discussing your experience as a McDonalds cashier.

Combining all four of these principles into your Ethos building regardless of the arguments you pose, will make your audience much more receptive to what you have to say.

Backfire Effect

“A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.” - A person

I once had a conversation that went about like this.
Person: I don’t like psychedelics.
Me: Do you drink alcohol?
Person: Yes.
Me: You should like psychedelics. It’s pretty unbased of you to drink alcohol but think psychedelics are wrong.
Person: Heck you.

As you can see it was quite the adult, responsible sort of convo. The crux issue of this argument comes down to the backfire effect, people often dig deeper when directly challenged. A primal part of us values agency. When our beliefs are directly challenged or we are told what to do, we can feel chained, beholden to the advice, embarrassed the other person thinks we couldn't have come to the conclusion ourselves.

The solution in turn, is not always to argue your position, but to question it. Asking questions has the benefit of guiding someone to a certain conclusion while allowing them to come to it themselves. Of course, questions can still come across as accusatory and preachy. It’s all about how you ask them.

Show some curiosity. For example, my friend told me they were arguing with another friend (a guy) about trans-affirming care recently. The one against trans-affirming care couldn’t seem to understand why someone would want to go through such a surgery. So my friend asked one simple question: if you suddenly grew boobs, would you want to surgically remove them?

The guy opened his mouth, paused for a few seconds, and then admitted defeat. That’s the power of a well-thought-out question.

Principles Of Effective Argumentative Questions

Make It Personal

• Help people feel the situation directly
• Create vivid scenarios
• Connect to their experience
• Example: "How would you feel if..."

Show Genuine Curiosity

• Express real interest in understanding
• Avoid rhetorical questions
• Listen actively to answers
• Follow up thoughtfully
• Example: "What led you to that conclusion?"

Use the Socratic Sequence

• Start broad, then narrow
• Build on each answer
• Lead to natural conclusions
• Example sequence:
  • "What do you mean by X?"
  • "How did you arrive at that view?"
  • "What if we considered Y?"
  • "How does that fit with what you said about X?"

Questions to Avoid

• Leading Questions
• Loaded Questions
• Accusatory Question

Incremental Agreement

One of the best books I’ve read on negotiation is Never Split The Difference by ex hostage negotiator Chris Voss.

One of the most valuable techniques he shares in there is incremental agreement. The idea is by getting your audience to say yes to a small thing and building up from there, you make it vastly more likely they say yes to their big thing later on.

You can apply this in argument by getting your dance partner to say yes by finding a small agreement and slowly building your argument to the big reveal at the end.

For example, let’s say you wanted to convince them psychedelics should be legalized.

You start by asking if they drink coffee and alcohol. Yes to both. Great. So they’re fine with some drugs. You ask them why they think those drugs are fine. For coffee it’s practically impossible to overdose, has positive alertness and focusing effects, and is a shared cultural phenomenon. For alcohol, it’s pleasant to take, is a shared cultural phenomenon especially for parties, and it de-stresses you.

Based on this, you ask them if they would be fine with a drug if it had positive effects, was hard if not impossible to overdose on, was a shared cultural phenomenon, wasn’t that addictive, and didn’t pose much of a risk to anyone else. You get a yes. Okay, great, well, they should be fine with the traditional psychedelics then, especially if they condone alcohol, considering alcohol is much much more dangerous than traditional psychedelics. Then you reach out behind your back and offer a God dose do Magic Mushrooms because you came prepared (this is a joke, kind of).

Of course, they might still disagree with you out of principle. But by getting incremental yeses, you make it vastly more likely they will give your side a chance.

Spotting Other People (And Sometimes Your Own) Bullshit

In an ideal world, everyone would use reasonable, logical arguments all the time.

Yet once again, because we live with Homo Sapiens, we must be ready for argumentative fallacies. Here are some of the most common.

Common Argumentative Fallacies

Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself (e.g., "You're too young to understand economics").

Bad Faith Accusations: Dismissing an opponent's argument by claiming they aren't arguing sincerely, without evidence of insincerity.

Hasty Generalization: Drawing broad conclusions from insufficient or unrepresentative samples (e.g., "My neighbor is French and rude, therefore all French people are rude").

Apples and Oranges: Assuming that because two things share one similarity, they must be similar in other ways (e.g., "Cars and planes both have engines, so they must need the same maintenance").

Nature Fallacy: Assuming that because something is "natural" it must be good or better (e.g., "Natural sugar is healthier than artificial sweeteners because it's natural").

Fallacy Fallacy: Concluding that because someone's argument contains a fallacy, their conclusion must be wrong (the conclusion might still be right, just poorly argued).

Begging the Question: Making an argument that assumes the truth of the conclusion (e.g., "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is God's word").

Loaded Question: Asking a question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., "Have you stopped cheating on tests?").

Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing something solely because of its origins rather than its current merits (e.g., "This medicine came from a folk remedy, so it can't be effective").

Special Pleading: Making exceptions to a rule when it applies to yourself without justification (e.g., "Everyone should pay taxes, except me because I work really hard").

Motte and Bailey: Switching between an easily defensible position (motte) and a more controversial one (bailey) as convenient in argument.

Standing Up For The Underdog Fallacy: Claiming an argument can't be questioned because it advocates for an underdog group.

Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack (e.g., simplifying "we need immigration reform" to "they want open borders").

Minimization: Inappropriately reducing the significance or magnitude of something (e.g., "It's just a little white lie"). Euphemisms are a type of minimization like describing starving African children as being “food insecure.”

That's Offensive Fallacy: Dismissing an argument solely because it causes offense rather than addressing its substance.

Offense Archaeology: Invalidating current arguments by digging up past problematic statements, even if they've been acknowledged and retracted.

Making Stuff Up: Fabricating evidence or claims without factual basis.

Whataboutism: Deflecting criticism by pointing to others' wrongdoing (e.g., "But what about when you did something similar?").

Common Sense Fallacy: Claiming something must be true because it's "common sense" without providing actual evidence.

Controlling the Metaphors: Using loaded metaphors to frame the debate unfairly (e.g., describing immigration as a "flood" versus a "flow").

Interruption Fallacy: Cutting off arguments before completion to attack partial points without understanding the full context.

False Dichotomy/Binary: Reducing a complex issue to only two possible options when more exist (e.g., "Either you're with us or against us").

Post Hoc: Assuming that because one thing happened after another, the first thing caused the second (e.g., "I got sick after walking under a ladder, so the ladder caused my illness").

Appeal to Authority: Accepting something as true simply because an authority figure said it, even if they're not expert in that specific area (e.g., "This actor says this diet works, so it must be effective").

Slippery Slope: Arguing that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of negative events without showing causation (e.g., "If we ban plastic bags, soon they'll ban all containers").

No True Scotsman: Moving the definition goalposts to preserve a universal claim when presented with a counterexample (e.g., "No true scientist would question evolution" - when shown a scientist who does).

Bandwagon: Believing something is true or good simply because it's popular (e.g., "Everyone's buying this cryptocurrency, so it must be a good investment").

Middle Ground: Assuming the middle position between two extremes must be correct (e.g., "Some say exercise is crucial, others say it's worthless, so moderate exercise twice a month must be perfect").

Appeal to Ignorance: Claiming something must be true because it hasn't been proven false (e.g., "Nobody has proven aliens don't exist, so they must exist").

Cherry Picking: Selecting only evidence that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence (e.g., citing only studies that support your view while ignoring dozens that don't).

Appeal to Tradition: Arguing something is right because it's traditional or has always been done that way (e.g., "We've always hired this way, so it must be the best method").

Circular Reasoning: Using the conclusion of an argument as its premise (e.g. I’m always right. You should trust this statement because, well, I’m always right).

Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to distract from the main argument (e.g., responding to workplace criticism by bringing up unrelated company issues).

Tu Quoque (You Too): Deflecting criticism by pointing out the accuser's hypocrisy without addressing the criticism (e.g., "You can't criticize my recycling habits because you drive a car").

Composition/Division: Assuming what's true of the parts must be true of the whole or vice versa (e.g., "Every player on the team is great, so the team must be unbeatable").

Perfect Solution: Rejecting good solutions because they aren't perfect (e.g., "Why bother reducing plastic use if it won't completely solve ocean pollution?").

Appeal to Emotion: Using emotional manipulation instead of logical reasoning (e.g., showing sad puppy pictures in arguments about unrelated policy issues).

False Equivalence: Treating two significantly different things as if they're the same (e.g., "Having to wear a mask is just like living under dictatorship").

Moving the Goalposts: Changing the criteria for success after they've been met (e.g., "Yes you have evidence, but where's the evidence from last year?").

Ecological: Applying group statistics to individuals without justification (e.g., "Women live longer than men, so this woman will outlive this man").

How to Counter These Fallacies

1. Identify: Learn to recognize these patterns
2. Name: Explicitly identify the fallacy being used
3. Redirect: Return focus to the actual argument
4. Evidence: Ask for concrete evidence rather than rhetorical devices
5. Clarify: Request clear definitions and specific claims

Prevention in Your Own Arguments

1. Self-Check: Review your arguments for these fallacies
2. Evidence-Based: Use concrete evidence rather than rhetoric
3. Steel Man: Present opponent's arguments in their strongest form
4. Define Terms: Be clear about what you mean
5. Stay Focused: Keep to the actual point of contention

Remember: Identifying a fallacy doesn't automatically win an argument - you still need to address the core claims and provide counter-evidence when appropriate.

A Variety Of Useful Checklists

I decided to create a whole bunch of useful checklists using information from this article for you to use to your arguing content. May they serve you well in your dancing.

• Pre-Argument Preparation Checklist
• The BUILD Framework For Constructing Arguments
• The CRACK Framework For Dismantling Arguments
• Logical Fallacy Reference Guide
• Argumentative Framing Quick Guide

Getting Your Arguing Dance On

Well, you've made it through this argumentative tango—hopefully with fewer stepped-on toes than when you started. You've learned the basic steps: from the graceful waltz of deductive reasoning to the passionate salsa of emotional appeal, and even how to dodge those pesky logical fallacy face-plants.

Remember, like dancing, argumentation isn't about destroying your partner. It's about creating something beautiful together.

You're now equipped with enough moves to either:

• Have productive discussions that lead to genuine understanding
• Become absolutely insufferable at family dinners
• Both, if you're anything like me

Now go forth and argue!