CHARACTERIZING THE CONCLUSION(DILEMMA)
The only test of a conclusion or principle is to extend it to the extreme in order to see how well it works. Thus whenever your opponent gives his conclusion, assume that he means it to be a general principle. For example, if he concludes that we should send aid to a country in distress (for example, Ethiopia), then you should assume that he wants to send aid to every country in distress. If he attempts to reject this notion, then counter by asking why some are to be favored over others.
The second way is directly criticize it for not achieving some other function or goal. For example, if you are arguing against aiding Ethiopians, then you should point out that such aid will in no way end the hostilities in Africa. The specific function not achieved should be something that you think the audience considers important.
The third way of attacking a conclusion directly is to treat your opponent's conclusion as contrary and not as contradictory. What does this mean? Usually,you and your opponent have contradictory positions, and when it becomes difficult to attack the contradictory statement, you may pretend that his position is something else, something you can attack more easily. Usually what you can attack more easily is the contrary statement.
One of the best ways of concluding a refutation of someone else's argument is to offer a dilemma. The structure of a dilemma will be given, then exemplified and analyzed.
If...S1..., then...S2...; AND
If...S3...,then...S4...
S1 OR S3
__________________
Therefore, S2 OR S4.
Consider the following example of a dilemma:
If S1 men are good, then S2 gun control laws are not necessary; and if S3 men are bad, S4 gun control laws will not be effective. Men are either good or bad. Therefore, gun control laws are either not necessary or not effective.
In the above example, S1 corresponds to the statement "men are good" S2 corresponds to the statement "gun control laws are not necessary." S3 corresponds to the statement "men are bad." S4 corresponds to the statement "gun control laws will not be effective."
The dilemma is an effective weapon because it leaves the impression that your opponent's case leads only to undesirable consequences. Since the dilemma has a standard pattern, there is no challenge in constructing it. However, it is always the case that some dilemmas are better than others. The most effective ones are built from points you have already made. Thus, in the structure you should try to argue the relationship between S1 and S2 or the relationship between S3 and S4 in the earlier part of your attack. If they seem to be successful, then you may use them in the dilemma.
This technique has a way of reinforcing your whole argument in the minds of the audience. Moreover, S1 and S3 should be a dichotomy defined: "division into two parts or kinds" that you think your audience will accept.
Nonverbal Devices
You should remember that a good attacker tries to choose the battlefield. That is, he tries to give the impression that his interpretation of the opposition is the only one as well as the correct one. This task will be easier if you can, as part of your attack, divert the audience's attention from your opponent while presenting his case.
The second way is directly criticize it for not achieving some other function or goal. For example, if you are arguing against aiding Ethiopians, then you should point out that such aid will in no way end the hostilities in Africa. The specific function not achieved should be something that you think the audience considers important.
The third way of attacking a conclusion directly is to treat your opponent's conclusion as contrary and not as contradictory. What does this mean? Usually,you and your opponent have contradictory positions, and when it becomes difficult to attack the contradictory statement, you may pretend that his position is something else, something you can attack more easily. Usually what you can attack more easily is the contrary statement.
One of the best ways of concluding a refutation of someone else's argument is to offer a dilemma. The structure of a dilemma will be given, then exemplified and analyzed.
If...S1..., then...S2...; AND
If...S3...,then...S4...
S1 OR S3
__________________
Therefore, S2 OR S4.
Consider the following example of a dilemma:
If S1 men are good, then S2 gun control laws are not necessary; and if S3 men are bad, S4 gun control laws will not be effective. Men are either good or bad. Therefore, gun control laws are either not necessary or not effective.
In the above example, S1 corresponds to the statement "men are good" S2 corresponds to the statement "gun control laws are not necessary." S3 corresponds to the statement "men are bad." S4 corresponds to the statement "gun control laws will not be effective."
The dilemma is an effective weapon because it leaves the impression that your opponent's case leads only to undesirable consequences. Since the dilemma has a standard pattern, there is no challenge in constructing it. However, it is always the case that some dilemmas are better than others. The most effective ones are built from points you have already made. Thus, in the structure you should try to argue the relationship between S1 and S2 or the relationship between S3 and S4 in the earlier part of your attack. If they seem to be successful, then you may use them in the dilemma.
This technique has a way of reinforcing your whole argument in the minds of the audience. Moreover, S1 and S3 should be a dichotomy defined: "division into two parts or kinds" that you think your audience will accept.
Nonverbal Devices
You should remember that a good attacker tries to choose the battlefield. That is, he tries to give the impression that his interpretation of the opposition is the only one as well as the correct one. This task will be easier if you can, as part of your attack, divert the audience's attention from your opponent while presenting his case.
Comments