Making the Connection: Strategies to Build Effective Personal Relationships (Collection) (10 page)

Literalism

One of the most annoying kinds of arguments can be those with people who rely on literalism. Literalism is the joy of lawyers and insurance companies. They base their argument on the literal meaning of the words they have used, rather than how those words would be understood by ordinary people. Hence you get the argument:

“We told you we would supply you with a new car, but we did not claim it would work.”

You can spot a literalist by some tell-tale words: “Let’s look at my exact words ...” or “All I said was ....” The annoying thing is that their arguments can often carry much weight in a court of law. In a contract dispute they will only be bound by what they promised to do. Indeed, if you’re in a dispute over whether you have broken your word it’s well worth thinking carefully about what you said you would do.

So what can you say to your literalist? One response is to see whether you can turn the tables on them. Maybe you agreed to pay them, but never said when you would. This way you can turn the tables on them and say: “If you are going to take your obligations literally, so will I.” That may lead to an agreement to read the contract in a sensible way.

Alternatively, you could ask what they meant people to think when they said what they said. A good response to a literalist is to suggest that had they wanted to say what they claimed, they could have done so clearly. Consider this:

Getting it right

Shazia:  “All I said I would do is that I would give you a refund. I did not say it would be a full refund.”

Mary:   “But anyone who is told they would get a refund would think it would be a full refund.”

Shazia:  “Ah, but you must listen to what I said.”

Mary:   “I did. If you had wanted to be clear you could have said it would only be a partial refund. By not making that clear I relied on the normal meaning of the word refund.”

Mary is making some good points here. She may not persuade Shazia, but she’s making her argument well.

Sometimes it is best to give up arguing with literalists.

Hostile association

This form of argument is to cast doubt on a viewpoint because it is one held by disreputable people. For example:

“You don’t want to be vegetarian. Hitler was one of them.”

Here you’re suggesting that supporters of vegetarianism are associated with Hitler. Of course, that’s completely unfair. Wicked people just occasionally have non-offensive views. It’s really quite difficult to be wrong all of the time about everything!

Sometimes “hostile association” is more subtle and relies on a hearer’s prejudice:

“A right-wing think tank has suggested lowering taxes, but ...”

Such a speaker is relying on you immediately dismissing any idea that has come from a right-wing think tank. Similarly if, let’s say, the accounting department in your firm is particularly unpopular you could argue:

“Now, this proposal is very popular with the accounting department, but ...”

“Begging the question”

“Ah, but you’re begging the question,” people often complain. The term “begging the question” (officially known as
petitio principii
) is commonly used, but not always properly. It is correctly used where a person puts forward an argument that is in fact no more than a reworking of their conclusion. So, rather than relying on a premise to argue to a conclusion, they use a conclusion to argue a reworded conclusion.

“Abortion is murder because it involves the killing of an innocent child.”

Well, “the killing of an innocent child”
is
murder and so in effect all that is being done here is to restate the conclusion, but create the impression that an argument has been used. You can normally spot such an argument if you think, “Well, anyone who believed your first point would agree with the second.”

Getting it wrong

“This deal will make an excellent profit. We will therefore quickly recoup our losses. Those who think the deal involves taking on dangerous debts are therefore mistaken.”

In that argument the conclusion that there are no dangers with the deal is only true if it’s true that the deal will make
an excellent profit. You can often spot a begging-the-question argument because it’s one that no one could disagree with, if only the fact it started with is correct.

Slippery slopes

This is a common device that arises in arguments. It centers on the issue: where do we draw the line? Consider, for example, an argument about whether insurance companies should deny treatment to those who have diseases caused by smoking. An opponent may argue:

“Where next? Will we deny treatment to those who are overweight, to those who do not exercise enough? You will end up with insurance companies only offering treatment to superfit, ultra-virtuous athletes.”

In a “slippery-slope” argument, the arguer seeks to show that there is no logical place to draw the dividing line, that once one exception is accepted then a line cannot be drawn anywhere sensibly. You’re therefore driven to accepting an absurd conclusion. Because you don’t want to reach the absurd conclusion you decide it would be better not to take even one step down the slippery slope. For example, schools and colleges often have absolute policies on matters such as uniforms, for fear that once one exception is granted there will be a flood of requests for more exceptions.

In a slippery-slope argument, you make the point that once we allow A, we must also allow B, C, D and E, as there is no good reason for distinguishing them from A. Your argument is that having to accept D or E will be disastrous. We must, therefore, not allow even the exception of A, however innocuous it might look on its own.

Responding to a slippery-slope argument can be difficult. There are two ways this can be attempted.

•
Deny that the slope is slippery.
One response is to suggest that the place where you had drawn the line is a justifiable one and there is no reason why you need to accept that other scenarios would follow.

“I think we can allow an exception to the uniform code for this student because this involves a religious belief. We can explain that only exceptions based on religious belief will be allowed, and there will not be many of those.”

•
You could argue that the slope is slippery everywhere.
The argument here is that there is no sensible reason to draw the line where you do but it has to be drawn somewhere. Take, for example, the fact that to buy alcohol you need to be 21 in the US. Now, it’s easy to argue that this is an arbitrary line. Nothing magical happens on the night of a twenty-first birthday. But this point can be made at whatever age is chosen. It can always be argued that the child does not magically become more mature in the course of a few hours the day before the relevant birthday.

This is true in lots of areas of life. Take speeding. Is it really that much more dangerous to drive at 31 mph than 29 mph? Probably not, but driving at the first speed can cause you to end up with a ticket, the latter not. So the first question to ask is whether there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Well, assuming we don’t want 7-year-olds buying beer and we don’t want roads without speed limits, we need to draw the line somewhere. Having reached that conclusion, we need to accept that wherever the line is drawn there will be cases either side of the line where it seems arbitrary. The next question is whether the place the line is drawn is a reasonably good one. So, regarding the age to buy alcohol, we are confident that, generally, under 21-year-olds lack the maturity needed to make the decision to buy alcohol, while over 21-year-olds do possess it. If that is correct, there is a strong argument for saying, yes the line drawn is an arbitrary one, but we have to draw a line somewhere, and this place is the best place to draw it.

What if?

A common tactic in argument is to produce an absurd scenario that will produce disaster.

“Bob has suggested that we relocate to Boston, but what will happen if there is a national railway strike?”

Or more dramatically:

“That financial plan looks very sensible, but what would happen if there is a stock market crash?”

This form of argument is common. Its essence is very sensible: it can be used to point out the dangers of a proposed course of action. However, the argument should be treated with care. Virtually any idea could be opposed on the basis that one can imagine a scenario where it would be foolish. “But what if ..?” can always be asked. For example:

“We should not buy Christmas presents this year, because Martians may land tomorrow and take over the world.”

A good use of “what if?” is to show that not only are there potentially disastrous consequences, but that those are realistic. If you are the opponent of a “what if” argument, your case will be even stronger if you can show that there are alternatives that are just as good, but that do not carry with them the suggested disadvantages. Also, many “what if” arguments can be defeated by saying that the dreaded scenario will be a problem whatever the situation is. If Martians land and take over the world, the fact you have bought Christmas presents may be the least of your worries!

Straw men

The battlefields of arguments are littered with the bodies of slain straw men. Straw women seem rarely to face attack. It can be a powerful rhetorical tool to pick on a particularly weak argument that could be used by the other side and ridicule it. Consider this example:

“I read yesterday an article from my opponent’s party arguing we should raise taxes so that we can spend money on improving Buckingham Palace. Well, I think the Queen can well afford to look after her own building rather than calling on the downtrodden taxpayers of England. So I say: No More Taxes.”

This argument is designed to make its opponents look foolish. However, it is based on the false assumption that the only argument opponents might make is the one mentioned. Of course, much better arguments could be used for raising taxes than the one mentioned.

A version of the straw-man argument is to characterize your opponent’s arguments in the most extreme way possible:

“I hate green politicians; they would close down every factory in the country if they had a chance.”

“Those who support cuts in the defense budget want to leave our country open to be invaded.”

The best way to defeat the straw-man argument is clearly to dissociate yourself from the ridiculous argument:

“I agree with my opponent that raising taxes to improve Buckingham Palace would be absurd. But I can think of much better things to use tax money on than that. What about improving our hospitals. Would you agree to raising taxes to spend more on hopsitals?”

The dangers of the two-wrongs argument

You are likely to have come across the two-wrongs argument: “Bribery is OK because everyone’s doing it.” “If we don’t sell arms to this unpleasant regime someone else will.” But just because someone else is doing something wrong does not mean that it becomes permissible to do it. We would think it a very bad argument if a pedophile were to say: “It didn’t matter that I abused this child, because if I had not someone else would have.”

So beware of those who use the two-wrongs argument, and be careful of using it yourself. It is never a justification for any position.

The power of silence

It’s important to realize that in an argument silence is an option. Indeed, it can be an important tool. I’m sure we have all been at meetings where the longer a person has spoken the less we are convinced by their position. Especially in a meeting, it can be more worthwhile letting someone continue to make their case very badly than trying to intervene.

Silence is, of course, key in order to avoid an argument altogether. Remember Golden Rule 2: there is a time and place for every argument. If you’re not sure whether this is the time or place, it’s probably best simply to remain silent. Silence is in its nature equivocal; you should not be taken to disagree or agree
with what is being said. If you are pushed to respond you can simply say: “I’m not ready to discuss this right now.”

Silence may also be an appropriate response where you feel that the person you are arguing with has made a very good point to which you don’t have a ready response. Being silent may encourage them to make another point to which you may have a better answer.

“Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute.”

Josh Billings

Feeling stuck?

Sometimes in an argument you may feel you don’t know what to say. It may be best to suggest that you continue the argument another time so that you can clear your head. If not, it’s useful to have a stock of phrases you can use:

Useful examples

“Could you explain that in non-technical language?”

“What are your parameters?”

“Are you just begging the question?’

While the other person is dealing with your questions you will have some time to think about what you want to say.

Summary

Watch out for arguments that at first seem convincing, but on closer analysis are not proper arguments at all. Think carefully about whether what the person has said follows from the fact. Ask yourself whether they have established certain facts and whether their conclusions follow from their facts.