An argument is a communication process that attempts to resolve an actual disagreement, confusion, or ignorance about something. Arguments occur all the time and are a staple ingredient of many communication environments. The end goal of an argument should be to reach a conclusion which is sufficiently persuasive to convince someone of a position on a claim.
Some arguments are relatively trivial and easy to resolve. For example, if I argue that I am older than you and if you disagree, then we may argue about the fact. Here, all we may have to do is look at our drivers licenses to resolve the disagreement. Similarly, if I argue that the final exam for a class is on Monday and you argue that I am wrong, because it is on Wednesday, then we can resolve that argument by referring to a mutually acceptable authority on the subject, like the published final exam schedule.
Usually arguments such as these are relatively trivial. Their resolution is easy and quick because there is an authority to establish the facts, and there is general acceptance of that authority as the arbitrator of the dispute. Once that authority rules on the dispute, then the argument is over.
Arguments become more complex when we are not immediately certain about how to resolve them. These arguments usually involve some type of value judgment, where the final outcome is not necessarily factually based. For example, one sports team is better than another, one type of food is tastier than another, should I purchase one type of car or another. For that reason, we have a variety of structured arguments such as; judicial arguments, legislative debates, industrial disputes, divorce mediation, and so on, that have agreed upon processes and rules. When using these structured arguments, we agree to abide by the processes we have set up to resolve the argument, even if the result is not always what we had hoped.
One challenge is that even with the best intentions, miscommunication is likely to happen. Remember, perfect communication is impossible. The more significant differences between communicators, the greater the potential miscommunication. Miscommunication may lead to conflict, or aggravate conflict that already exists. This is one of the reasons we strive for constructive arguments.
To engage in effective arguments, we need to have an understanding of how to argue constructively. There is a major difference between constructive argumentation and merely bickering or quarreling with another person or organization. In the public world of work, politics, education, and the media, the primary requirement of an effective argument is that it must be rational, that is, follow the rules of reason.
In today’s world, there is an abundance of irrationality. Just take a quick look at Facebook posts and responses to others. We need to be much more skilled in the argumentative process to be able to argue constructively and achieve a conclusion.
The Goals of Argumentative Communication
Jim’s wife Suzy is suspicious. She has noticed on the credit card bills charges from a jewelry store and a department store that Jim has told her nothing about. She also notices that he is getting secretive phone calls and that is not like him. And he goes out, telling her he is going to the gym, but he is gone too long for just a workout. Suzy is wondering what is going on, is he is having an affair? She, of course, asks her hairdresser about it and they both share their thoughts.
A couple of days later Jim is getting his hair cut by the same person who cuts Suzy’s hair and is asked what he is doing. Jim tells her that he is preparing for a surprise visit from their daughter. He is buying presents for Suzy at his daughter’s request. The phone calls were from her, his long workout also included making arrangements for the trip.
Was Suzy’s conclusion that Jim is having an affair a reasonable one? That is, is the conclusion consistent with the evidence used to make it? In this case, the answer is yes. All of the evidence can be considered traditional support for someone having an affair. Is Jim’s explanation that he is buying his wife presents on behalf of his daughter a reasonable one? That is, is the explanation consistent with the evidence used to make it? In this case, the answer is also yes.
But, who is telling the Truth, Jim or Suzy? To answer this, we need to ask what is Truth? And a second important question, “Do we even use the concept of Truth in improving our skill at argumentation? To answer this we turn to Epistemology, the theory of knowledge or branch of philosophy that studies Truth and how knowledge is gained, how much we can know, and what justification there is for what is known.
