10 Ways to Win an Argument

Two types of errors or fallacies exist within the arena of argumentation. These types include fallacy of relevancy and ambiguity. The former type of error, relevancy, is related to the relationship between the premise and conclusion of an argument. Though the argument is psychology relevant, the premise and conclusion are not linked logically. Therein lays the error.

These errors were most notably recognized and commented on by Aristotle. Rhetoric, written by Aristotle circa 335 BCE (Before the Common Era), outlined the art of persuasion and remains as relevant today as it was in those turbulent political times.

Learning to recognize these common errors, you will become proficient in not only presenting your argument but increasingly skilled at avoiding or circumventing these errors in the argument of others.

1. The Argument of Ignorance (ad Ignorantium)
This error is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proved otherwise. Many false propositions have not yet been proved false, just as many true propositions have not yet proved true. I could offer the proposition that the dwarf planet Pluto is made of cheese. Based on this fallacy, I am able to cling to this position based solely on the fact that no one, including scientist, can offer evidence to the contrary. Thus, by sheer not knowing or absence of evidentiary proof, one may claim victory in the argument.

2. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (ad Verecundiam)
This error is committed whenever we appeal to knowledge or claim to legitimacy presented by an expert with little or no relevant training in a field of study. For instance, an economist may offer insight into the nuclear family as it pertains to the economic effects of a recession but he/she may not offer relevant information on deviant social behaviors relating to adolescence within that nuclear family.

3. Complex Question
The complex question is the most common error that one faces within day to day discourse. In its natural form, it is a rhetorical question. A person will present a proposition, in a form of a question that includes both the premise and conclusion. It draws one into a trap. The complex question is the favorite technique of many lawyers. Since court procedure only allows the attorney to ask questions, a cleverly constructed question can make or break a case. Thus, declarative statements cleverly disguised as questions make their way into the legal arena.

4. Argument "against the person" (ad Hominem)
This error is most commonly presented in the media in the form of name calling. A show host will preface their position by attaching a negative label to people and/or persons on the other side of the argument. In presenting the other party in a negative light, viewers are led to psychologically discount what they have to say or their respective position on an issue.

5. Accident
This error is rooted in the misuse of generalizations. Accident refers to a deductive leap from a generalization to an individual case. This includes taking a general idea and applying it on an individual level. Often this is done with little or no concern for the legitimate connection between the generalization and the individual and thus wrongly applied.

6. Converse Accident
This error is also rooted in the misuse of generalizations. Converse Accident refers to an inductive leap from an individual case to a generalization. We offer proof of a generalization by pointing out specific examples. Again, we run the risk of erroneously assigning a connection between an individual case and the general argument.

7. False Cause (non causa pro causa)
Where Accident and Converse Accident recognize an evidentiary or proof error, False Cause focuses in on the relationship between cause and effect. This error is self-explanatory, fundamentally suggesting that event B necessarily follows event A.

8. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
Begging a question is to assume the truth of that which one endeavors to prove. It is also called a circular argument. Basically, one merely restates the premise of an argument within their conclusion.

9. The Appeal to Emotion (ad Populum), Pity (ad Misericordiam), or Force (ad Baculum)
These argumentative approaches elicit a visceral response. The opposing person or group is faced with appeals to emotion, pity or exposed to the threat of force.

10. Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)
Finally, irrelevant conclusion occurs when a premise misses its target or conclusion. This error occurs when an argument is presented that is irrelevant to a conclusion.

Learning to recognize these common errors or fallacies within the argument construct will enable you to present your case in a more effective manner. It will also allow you to spot fallacies in the argument of others. One can practice by merely watching media news shows or shows focused on the court process. Thus one can recognize that which is being presented by politicians, or by one's spouse.