Strategies for Argument Refutation

GROUP TOPIC

INDIVIDUAL TOPIC

Refuting an Argument

Strategies for Refutation

University of Languages and International Studies

Vietnam National University, Hanoi

Đặng Thị Linh

09E17

Hanoi, May 24, 2012

Refuting an Argument 2012

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I- Introduction………………………………………………………..……………….2

II- Strategies for argument refutation ……………………………………………….2

1. Provide an argument that one or more of the premises is false ……………………...2

2. Show that the argument is not valid or not strong…………........................................4

3. Show that the conclusion is false…………………………………………………..…6

4. Indirectly Refuting an Argument: Reducing to the Absurd………………………….7

5. Showing that an argument has committed an informal fallacy…………………… .8

III- Some general dos and don’ts to help you win arguments……………………...8

1. Dos……………………………………………………………………………………8

2.Don’ts………………………………………………………………………………..10

IV- Conclusion………………………………………………………………….........10

V- Reference…………………………………………………………………………..11


3

Strategies For Argument Refutation

I- Introduction:

It is important to keep in mind that there is no single formula that always works in

refuting an argument. Every argument is different argument, and so different strategies

will be effective for different arguments. Some strategies lend themselves better to

certain arguments. For example, some arguments have controversial premises. In this

case, it is probably best to argue against one of the premises. Other arguments however,

will have premises that seem very plausible. In this situation, it may be better to think

about whether the conclusion really follows from the premises (even if they are true), or

perhaps you might try to refute the argument indirectly. Below are some strategies that

may help you effectively refute an argument.

II- Strategies for refuting an argument:

1. Provide an argument that one or more of the premises is false (Premise attack)

This strategy is to argue that a premise is false or insufficiently supported. Let’s call this

premise attack.

Let’s see an example:

Remember one of Hardin’s arguments:

1. Rich countries are analogous to lifeboats.

2. Poor countries are analogous to people drowning in the water.

3. People in life boats do not have an obligation to help those drowning in the

water, because if they did, everyone would die.


4

4. Therefore, Rich countries have no obligation to help poor countries

Hardin assumes that rich countries are analogous to poor countries, but this seems

dubious. The people on lifeboats have scarce resources such that if they give any of their

resources to the people drowning in the water, there is a very good chance everyone will

die. But rich countries have an overabundance of resources. Rich countries such as the

U.S., however, produce more food than people can eat. Farmers often produce so much

grain that it ends up rotting in grain silos before anyone can consume it. So, no U.S. lives

would be seriously threatened if we gave away some of our resources to poor countries.

In this way, rich countries are not analogous to lifeboats. Therefore, Hardin’s first

premise is false.

Tips:

When you argue that a premise is false, make sure you make explicit: a) what premise of

the argument you are objecting to, and b) why the author (or position) needs that premise

to be true in order for their argument to succeed. Make sure that the premise you are

attributing to the author is one they in fact rely on in the argument. Also, be sure that

when you use this strategy, you provide an argument that the premise is false. Don’t just

stamp your foot and declare it to be false – you have to give reasons for why reasonable

people should find the premise dubious. If you just say it is false without saying why, you

risk begging the question against the author.

2. Show that the argument is not valid or not strong.

This is a difficult strategy to use if the argument is a very complicated one. That is, if you

are examining a complicated argument, it may be more difficult to tell whether the

conclusion follows from the premises. But, if the premises of the argument do not seem

to lend support for the conclusion, then this sort of strategy can be extremely effective,


5

because you do not have to debate the plausibility of the premises.

Here’s an example of an argument and an objection that employs this strategy:

1. Human beings, in virtue of their biology, have a natural tendency to survive.

2. Euthanasia acts contrary to this natural tendency.

3. Therefore, euthanasia is morally wrong.

Let us suppose that the premises of this argument are true. Nonetheless, the conclusion

does not follow. We have several natural tendencies that are the result of our biology, but

that doesn’t make acting against these tendencies morally wrong. For example, we might

have, in virtue of our biology, a natural tendency to be selfish. Of course, we do not think

that performing self-less actions for the good of others is morally wrong. So, just because

we have a natural tendency against something, it does not follow that it is wrong.

Therefore, the above argument is weak.

Tips:

You can show that an argument is invalid or weak by offering a counter-example to the

argument. In the above objection, the author attempts to give a counter example to the

argument that because something is unnatural, it is wrong. That is, the author attempts to

show that the argument is weak by giving another instance when something is unnatural,

but we do not think it is wrong. This helps to show that something’s being unnatural is

not good evidence for its being morally wrong. What is good about the author’s counter-

example here is that it consists of a plausible premise: “We have a natural tendency to be

selfish” and a conclusion that is clearly false: “Acting for the good of others is morally

wrong.” This makes it clear that the premises, even if true, don’t provide good evidence

for the conclusion. One way that it is easy to go wrong with this strategy is by

misrepresenting the argument you are objecting to. If you think an argument is invalid,

make sure that you are using the Principle of Rational Discussion in interpreting the

argument. Remember - some arguments will need to be repaired. It is only after you have

judged the argument to be unrepairable that you should use this strategy.


6

3. Show that the conclusion is false.

This is perhaps the most difficult strategy to use effectively. The reason is that you do not

want to beg the question against your opponent. Imagine a debate between a Pro-Life and

a Pro-Choice advocate:

Pro-Lifer: We all agree that it is wrong to inflict pain on living creatures. That is

why we think animal cruelty is wrong. Well, fetuses develop pain receptors by the

10th week of pregnancy. Abortions after the 9th week, then, will inflict pain on a

living creature. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

How can the Pro-Choice advocate respond? She cannot effectively respond by simply

saying:

Pro-Choicer: Yeah, but it is false that abortion is wrong, so your argument is

mistaken.

She cannot effectively respond this way, because this response begs the very questions at

stake. That is, it just asserts that abortion is wrong, which was the proposition we were

arguing about!

If you are going to show that the conclusion of an argument is false, you have to give

some independent argument for why we should think it is false. This can be a good

strategy to use for either a) arguments that seem valid and the premises are difficult to

verify, or b) strong arguments with plausible premises.

For example:

1. The pilot on the plane reported having trouble with the jet’s tail.

2. Therefore, it is likely that a malfunction in the tail caused the crash.

This argument may initially seem plausible, but scientists working on the wreckage

for months have found no problem with the tail. They now believe that the tail would

have been working properly at the time of the crash. This suggests that something else


7

caused the jet to crash.

In this case, the refutation works, because it shows that there is reason, despite the

argument, for thinking that the conclusion is false. Notice that this refutation does not just

try to reject the original argument, rather, the refutation tries to show that there are better

reasons for thinking that the conclusion is false.

Tips:

Attacking an argument in this way may be enough to simply question whether its

conclusion is true, but if a given argument that is being attacked has a certain degree of

strength, merely questioning its conclusion may not be sufficient. What the attacker needs

to do in such a case is to put forward a second argument that is stronger than the original

argument and that provides evidence for rejecting the conclusion of the original

argument. Such an attack is sufficient to defeat the original argument, unless its

proponent can give further reasons to support it.

4. Indirectly Refuting an Argument: Reducing to the Absurd.

This strategy involves refuting an argument by showing that the conclusion or the

premises of the argument lead to either a) a contradiction, or b) absurd, or highly counter-

intuitive consequences. We basically saw this sort of strategy in the article about John

Rocker that we read. The Seattle Times had argued:

1. John Rocker said racist things about New Yorkers.

2. It is wrong to say things that upset people.

3. Therefore, he ought to be punished.

The Times is claiming that it is wrong to say things that upset people. But, we have the

right to free speech in this country. So, the Times must be claiming that speech that

upsets people ought not to be protected by the First Amendment. But, if this were the

case, then the Times itself would not be protected by the First Amendment, as it often


8

prints things that upset people. Of course, it is absurd to think that the Times ought not to

be protected by the First Amendment. Thus, the Times was wrong to argue that Rocker

ought to be punished for saying things that upset people.

Tips:

When using this strategy, be careful not to commit the slippery slope fallacy by accident.

Again, be sure that you are correct in the claims you attribute to an author.

5. Showing that an argument has committed an informal fallacy.

This is really just a variation on strategy 2. The more familiar you are with informal

fallacies (a type of fallacy in which the content of the argument is relevant to its

fallaciousness), the easier it will be to spot those fallacies in arguments. In general, when

you claim that an argument commits an informal fallacy, the same tips that applied to

strategy 2 will also apply here. Also remember that in giving a refutation to an argument,

it is just as important for you to avoid committing a fallacy, such as Strawman, Slippery

Slope, or Begging the Question.

III- Some general dos and don’ts to help you win arguments

1. Dos:

Stay calm. Even if you get passionate about your point you must stay cool

and in command of your emotions. If you lose your temper – you lose.

Use facts as evidence for your position. Facts are hard to refute so gather

some pertinent data before the argument starts. Surveys, statistics, quotes

from relevant people and results are useful arguments to deploy in support

of your case.


9

Ask questions. If you can ask the right questions you can stay in control of

the discussion and make your opponent scramble for answers. You can ask

questions that challenge his point, ‘What evidence do you have for that

claim?’ You can ask hypothetical questions that extrapolate a trend and

give your opponent a difficulty, ‘What would happen if every nation did

that?’ Another useful type of question is one that calmly provokes your foe,

‘What is about this that makes you so angry?’

Use logic. Show how one idea follows another. Build your case and use

logic to undermine your opponent.

Appeal to higher values. As well as logic you can use a little emotion by

appealing to worthy motives that are hard to disagree with, ‘Shouldn’t we

all be working to make the world better and safer for our children?’

Listen carefully. Many people are so focused on what they are going to say

that they ignore their opponent and assume his arguments. It is better to

listen carefully. You will observe weaknesses and flaws in his position and

sometimes you will hear something new and informative!

Be prepared to concede a good point. Don’t argue every point for the

sake of it. If your adversary makes a valid point then agree but outweigh it

with a different argument. This makes you looked reasonable. ‘I agree with

you that prison does not reform prisoners. That is generally true but prison

still acts effectively as a deterrent and a punishment.’

Study your opponent. Know their strengths, weaknesses, beliefs and

values. You can appeal to their higher values. You can exploit their

weaknesses by turning their arguments back on them.

Look for a win-win. Be open-minded to a compromise position that

accommodates your main points and some of your opponent’s. You cannot

both win in a boxing match but you can both win in a negotiation.

2. Don’ts


10

Get personal. Direct attacks on your opponent’s lifestyle, integrity or

honesty should be avoided. Attack the issue not the person. If the other party

attacks you then you can take the high ground e.g.’ I am surprised at you

making personal attacks like that. I think it would be better if we stuck to the

main issue here rather than maligning people.’

Get distracted. Your opponent may try to throw you off the scent by

introducing new and extraneous themes. You must be firm. ‘That is an

entirely different issue which I am happy to discuss later. For the moment

let’s deal with the major issue at hand.’

Water down your strong arguments with weak ones. If you have three

strong points and two weaker ones then it is probably best to just focus on

the strong. Make your points convincingly and ask for agreement. If you

carry on and use the weaker arguments then your opponent can rebut them

and make your overall case look weaker.

IV- Conclusion

Refutation is necessary for a quality debate because it promotes direct clash between

arguments, therefore to dispute an argument effectively you not only must master the

skills of refutation but also need understand deeply the refutation strategies in order to

apply them flexibly in any situation, particularly when a debate occurs. There still have a

lot of other strategies that can help you succeed in refuting an argument; however a

noticeable thing is that each of them has its strengths and weaknesses so before using a

strategy let think about it carefully and never forget the most important rule: “To refute

an argument, you must argue against it. Asking questions is not enough. You must

present good reasons why its conclusions or reasons are wrong”


11

V- Reference

http://www.speechmastery.com/refutation.html

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-win-arguments-dos-donts-

and-sneaky-tactics.html

http://faculty.mdc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC2106/refutation.htm

https://sites.google.com/site/anintroductiontodebate/lectures/2-more-advanced-

material/1-refutation-strategies

Strategies for Argument Refutation

Documents

Transcript of Strategies for Argument Refutation