Neverside

A Guide for Forming Arguments

This is relatively simple but it is key in (especially) philosophical arguments.

The basic outline to an argument goes as follows:
PREMISE #1
PREMISE #2
CONCLUSION

In order for your conclusion to be reasonable (I'm not using this word loosely), both premises must be correct. If a premise is correct, then its logic is infallible.

To invalidate a conclusion, one must challenge either premise, or one must challenge the structure of the argument.

For example, consider a faulty structured argument that is obvious to challenge:

White is RGB 255, 255, 255.
BOATS ARE COOL
Black is not white

Premise 2 contributes to the faultiness of the argument. One could certainly challenge whether BOATS ARE COOL or not, but it would be irrelevant in this case as it does not lead up to the conclusion. Instead, one challenges premise 2 as a faulty element of the structure of the argument.

Hope this helps/makes sense.

___________________

irc.efnet.net #neverside
Neverside merchandise!

Last edited by James, May 9th, 2005 12:39 AM (Edited 1 times)

I'd also suggest that while one may enjoy proving the superiority of their opinion in a debate, there is also the potential of learning. I suggest tossing away your assumptions, researching the topic from many viewpoints, and forming an argument based on what you see. This in contrast to having an opinion then scrambling for sources to back you up.

At the very least, this leaves you a bit more enlightened and reasoned debator, if not considered to have a more realistic grasp of the topic. Extremism is rarely taken well by others. Reality tends to be somewhere in the middle.

True conclusions can result from false premises, so using pure logic won't always work; a valid argument doesn't have to be a sound argument. Of course red herring fallacies would be similar to what you described.