This article is part of the chapter that explains how to refute an opposing speaker's arguments. In chapter 6 articles: What is a contradiction?, counter arguments, Contradiction using logic, Contradiction with facts, Contradiction using the rules of speech, and how to organize a speech and a contradiction.

The counterargument

What do you do if there is truth in your opponent's arguments? In a good debate, both sides are likely to have good arguments. It may be hopeless or unproductive to try to destroy the self-evidently true line of argument. Instead, you can accept parts of your opponents' reasoning while still disagreeing with the conclusions they reach, and this can be done by using the indirect argument.

One way to do this is to compare your opponents' arguments with yours, showing that while the proposal team has pros and cons, the pros outweigh the cons. Most discussions like most issues in life are related to the question of balance. This could be the balance between the rights such as the existing balance between "the right of the mother to choose" and "the right of the fetus to live" in the debate on abortion. This can be a balance between the short-term and long-term distribution of resources between projects such as the space program and health care.

The trick in these discussions is to understand that there is no one side that is completely right or wrong and that there is truth in what both sides say, so the parachute will be the one that shows that he is more right and not the right one the only one. Alternatively, it is possible not to lose by finding the particular break-even point. A good debate will accept the complexity of the issues involved and explore the gray areas. Often times, your opponents will try to portray the debate as a black and white issue when that is not the case. Always try to find the level of analysis above theirs.

The example dealing with abortion is a good example: most government teams will try to describe the issue as a denial of rights, whether it is the rights of the fetus or the mother. By pointing out the fact that the discussion is actually about the existing balance between rights, you show that the issues are more complex and open to discussion. This situation leads to another type of indirect contradiction. The strategy is to accept some of the opposition's arguments but show that the overall conclusion is still flawed when those arguments are weighed against your own.

Also you can accept specific arguments but question the assumptions or value judgments they rely on. Many reasonings, for example, are centered around a number of methods that aim to avoid an outcome that is only assumed to be undesirable. Try to attack the hypothesis itself before going into the specifics. For example, in the debate on the institutionalization of prostitution, the government can claim that "prostitution is a necessary evil, and if it cannot be prevented, it is better to at least monitor it." The opposition can argue in two different directions (but not both at the same time!!): because even if it is impossible to prevent prostitution, it must be left illegal just as drug trafficking is illegal (direct argument). Alternatively, one can question the assumption that prostitution is inevitable, and say that it is in the interest of the elites to exploit weak women, and if there was an effort to solve the problems of the disadvantaged classes, women from these classes would not engage in prostitution (which is of course an indirect argument). When you attack your opponent's arguments always analyze them. You can't just ignore the arguments by calling them "ridiculous" without showing why. Also keep in mind that in a good discussion they probably won't be ridiculous. Acknowledge your opponent's good points but show why your points are better, why your reasoning is ultimately correct, or why the opposition's arguments rely on assumptions that undermine their strength.

Join the public speaking course now