It is widely understood that man is constantly in the habit of persuasion. No matter the intent or reason, every man has a belief he would like to impart. It is also widely understood that in these attempts of persuasion there is often resentment for dissent among all parties, a condition explained only by frustration. Such an internecine system may bring us to ask, what success do we engender after our suffering? Commonly, the answer is little. In this realization we may also ask which elements of our systems are faulty, or more directly, how should we go about their correction?

In every debate, there is an insistence on facts. The putative arbiter of all disagreements between mankind. Even when these facts are stated, however, do arguments fail to procure acquiescence; there appears to always be some issue, oversight, or misinterpretation of the information.

For every man who is truly interested in uniting with another in agreement such a disapprobation exists. It is only natural that he seeks a method to save himself from the squandering of speech. In such a pursuit, he must examine the common situation and discover what barriers lie between contention and assent.

Let us consider an example.

A rich man hires a butler. After many years, the requests and behavior of the rich man become ridiculous and onerous: instructing the butler to do jumping jacks; constantly yelling at him; irrationally haranguing and enjoining him to face the corner for hours. The butler protests, citing “inhumane treatment.” In response, the rich man states the butler is “performing the job for which you are paid.” The butler responds by demanding a higher compensation for the more tasking work he has. The rich man tells the butler, “You are paid to serve me. Your job has remained the same. You are not entitled to a higher compensation.” The butler claims the job is different because of the increased difficulty of the tasks and that as a result he should be paid more. The rich man says the butler is performing “the same general tasks” and that he has merely become lazy. Taking offense, the butler refutes, “I am lazy?” citing the rich man’s refusal to brush his own teeth. “When you’re older, you’ll understand.” “The only thing that needs to be understood is your languor!” The argument continues. No conclusion is reached.

Though this is a casual example, the sources of error are copious and complex. We shall iterate chronologically.

The inciting claim is of inhumane treatment by the butler. The first order in this punctilio is understanding this claim. Three events occur in this statement: the description of treatment as “inhumane,” the intimation of immorality, and the appeal to the interest of morality.

These events are so complex, in fact, that the philosophies behind their analysis cannot be discussed in a simply; refer to the corresponding lemmas.

As it is understood, the term “inhumane” is typically used to describe behavior which is cruel. Considering the nature of the butler’s protest, the notion that this definition was meant by the butler and interpreted as such by the rich man is well-founded.

The claim intimates immorality in the behavior of the rich man—that there are no facts which absolve him of guilt (perhaps the butler’s compensation has always been greater than commensurate with his work, and the rich man has senesced and cannot do many things on his own anymore).

Finally, the claim appeals to the supposed moral interests of the rich man. If he is not concerned with virtue or image, the alleged inhumane treatment will be of no concern to him.

The rich man’s response, “performing the job for which you are paid,” intimates that inhumane treatment is impossible because of a previous agreement; he tacitly avers that because the butler agreed “to serve me,” no demand which constitutes serving him will be outside of the purview established by the butler’s consent.

This, however, is false. Because the butler did not expound on “serve me,” the butler agreed to the common statutes of the phrase, and the rich man, having a common development and engagement with society, had the knowledge to acknowledge such but did not. If the rich man wanted to be “served” by the butler by climbing Mount Everest, for example, the vast majority of mankind would object, describing such as outside the casual limitations of “serving.” Such is the common meaning and understanding of service. Therefore, only demands which constitute the typical definition of serving will be inside the purview established by the butler’s consent.

The butler’s demand for increased pay is reflective of the principles of desert; the industry required for a task ought to be commensurate with its remunerativity.

The rich man’s response utilizes the same rhetoric as before, suggesting that the agreement encapsulates all service, regardless of arduousness.

Next, the butler expressly states the principle of desert in the context of employment. He is now appealing the assumed interest of the rich man to adhere to this principle.

Unable to spurn a personal value, the rich man impugns the claim of increased difficulty of tasks. He claims that they are “generally the same,” or marginally different, such that no increased pay is necessary in order to adhere to the principles of desert. The information given, however, exists as proof of the inverse claim. The mere command of jumping jacks, entirely unnecessary and likely used to self-entertain and aggrandize, is absolutely beyond the common purview of serving which the butler agreed to.

On top of this, however, the rich man claims the butler is lazy.

Instead of paying this statement no mind and reiterating the logic which proves immorality, the butler allows the rich man to digress the argument into a pattern of reviling. Whatever chance there may have been to convince the rich man no longer exists.

To maximize the probability of convincing the rich man, the butler’s argument should be structured as such: cite rebarbative tasks; cite desert; explain need for higher pay.

This is the general pattern of the most effective argument—the use of evidence with truthfulness agreed upon; the express statement of interests which are agreed upon; the necessary relationship between the two; and whatever elements of incontrovertibility may be necessary. Though this process is conspicuously simple compared to the goliath of human discourse, it contains every element necessary for the most effective argument.

POLEMIC

THE HOME OF REASON

Home

Topics

Featured

Trending

Hall of Fame

Official Posts

Account

Sign In

Subscriptions

Polemic

Pro

About

FAQ

Stats

Games

Privacy Policy

Content Policy

Terms of Service

Polemic

Arguments

Discussion (0)

20

2

11.0K

POST

Recommended