Skip to content
Spark & Whetstonethe grown-up commons

← How to Argue Well

How to Argue Well

Four short lessons on disagreeing well: separating a claim from its reasons, putting the other side at its strongest, spotting two common slips, and changing your mind gracefully.

Spark & Whetstone · sparkwhetstone.org/learn/how-to-argue-well · CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Answers are at the end, so you can try each question first.

Lesson 1. Claim, reason, evidence

Every argument has three parts, even when they are tangled together. The claim is what someone wants you to accept. The reason is why they think it is true. The evidence is what supports the reason.

"We should walk to school because it's only ten minutes, and last week the car took twelve in traffic." Claim: we should walk. Reason: it is about as quick. Evidence: last week's timing.

Pulling the parts apart lets you disagree precisely. You might accept the claim but doubt the evidence — one slow day is thin — or accept the evidence but think it does not support the claim.

Question. "The new café is better — the coffee is fresher, and three friends said so." What is the claim?

  1. The coffee is fresher.
  2. Three friends said so.
  3. The new café is better.

Say it back. In your own words: what are the three parts of an argument, and why does it help to pull them apart?

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Lesson 2. The strongest version

Before you answer someone, try saying their view back to them so well that they would say, "Yes — that is exactly what I mean." This is sometimes called steelmanning.

It is harder than it sounds. We tend to restate the other side in its weakest form, because that version is easiest to knock down. Answering a weak version wins nothing; the real view is still standing.

Steelmanning also cools a conversation. People who feel understood listen better — and you may find the gap between you is smaller than it looked.

Question. How do you know you have put someone's view at its strongest?

  1. You can easily find the flaw in it.
  2. They agree that is what they mean.
  3. You have used their exact words.

Say it back. Say it back: what is the test of a fair restatement, and why is it worth doing before you reply?

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Lesson 3. Two common slips

Two slips turn up in almost every heated argument. The first is the straw man: answering a distorted, easier version of what was said. "You want fewer cars downtown? So you want to ban cars." Nobody said ban.

The second is attacking the person instead of the point. "You would say that — you don't even drive." Whether someone drives does not make their reasons better or worse.

Naming a slip gently — "I don't think I said ban" — usually works better than naming it loudly. The aim is to get back to the real disagreement, not to score a point.

Question. "You think we should save more? You just don't want anyone to have fun." Which slip is this?

  1. A straw man
  2. Attacking the person
  3. No slip — a fair reply

Say it back. In your own words: describe the two slips, and one gentle way to bring a conversation back from each.

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Lesson 4. Changing your mind well

A good question to ask of any view you hold: what would change my mind? If the honest answer is "nothing", the view is no longer a conclusion — it has become a position you are defending.

Changing your mind is not losing. It is the point of looking at evidence at all. It can also be partial: "I'm less sure than I was" is a real and useful move.

Saying out loud what would change your mind also helps the other person. It tells them which evidence actually matters to you, so the conversation can go somewhere.

Question. Which reply best shows an open mind in a disagreement about a new bus route?

  1. "Nothing you say will change my view."
  2. "If ridership numbers showed people used it, I'd rethink."
  3. "I've always thought this, so I'm right."

Say it back. Say it back: pick one view you hold. What evidence, honestly, would change your mind about it?

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

At the table: The two-chair table

Players: 2 or more, any ages. You'll need: Two chairs and a light topic (pineapple on pizza, the best season).

  1. Pick a light topic where you disagree.
  2. Each person argues the OTHER side first, for one minute.
  3. The other person says whether that was their real view at its strongest. If not, try again.
  4. Only then argue your own side. Notice whether it changed after hearing yours made strong.

Answers

  1. The new café is better. — "The new café is better" is the claim. Fresher coffee is the reason; three friends is the evidence.
  2. They agree that is what they mean. — The test is theirs: when they say "yes, that's my view", you have it. Their exact words can still miss what they mean.
  3. A straw man — A straw man: "save more" has been swapped for "no one should have fun", which is easier to attack but not what was said.
  4. "If ridership numbers showed people used it, I'd rethink." — Naming the evidence that would change your view — ridership numbers — is what keeps a view open and a conversation useful.