Today while reading some articles about research methodologies, I came across this particular one. I wanted to share it here because the few paragraphs below are relevant to the never-ending discussions on Siaiast.pk
When a person feels strongly about an issue, he/she uses various types of techniques to persuade
others to agree with them. Some of these techniques appeal to the intellect, some to the emotions. Many
of them distract the listener or the reader from the real issues. Below are some of the examples of
argumentation tactics. Most of them can be used either to advance an argument in an honest, reasonable
way or to deceive or distract from the real issues. It is important for a critical reader to recognize these
tactics in order to evaluate rationally an author’s ideas.
1. Scare tactics: the threat that if you do or do not believe this, something terrible will happen.
2. Straw Person: distorting or exaggerating an opponent’s arguments to make one’s own seem stronger.
3. Bandwagon: the idea that ‘everybody’ does this or believes this.
4. Slanters: trying to persuade through inflammatory and exaggerated language instead of through reason.
5. Generalizations: using tactics or facts to generalize about a population, place, or thing.
6. Personal Attack: criticizing an opponent personally instead of rationally debating his or her ideas.
7. Categorical Statements: stating something in a way implying that there can be no argument.
As pointed out by Joseph Joubert, "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle
a question without debating it" (1978: 324). Probably the best way to become informed is to analyze the
positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every
variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth. Opinions from the mainstream of society should
be examined. But also important are opinions that are considered radical, reactionary, or minority as well
as those stigmatized by some other uncomplimentary label. An important lesson of history is the eventual
acceptance of many unpopular and even despised opinions. The ideas of Socrates and Galileo are good
examples of this.
To have a good grasp of one’s own viewpoint, it is necessary to understand the arguments of those
with whom one disagrees. It can be said that those who do not completely understand their adversary’s
point of view do not fully understand their own. A persuasive case for considering opposing viewpoints
has been presented by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. When examining controversial issues it
may be helpful to reflect on this suggestion:
The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a
subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety, and studying all
modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his
wisdom in any mode but this.
A pitfall to avoid in considering opposing points of view is that of regarding one’s own opinion
as being common sense and the most rational stance and the point of view of others as being only opinion
and naturally wrong. It may be that another’s opinion is correct and one’s own is in error.
Another pitfall to avoid is that of closing one’s mind to the opinions of those with whom one
disagrees. Dudley F. Malone used to say: "I have never in my life learned anything from any man who
agreed with me." The best way to approach a dialogue is to make one’s primary purpose that of
understanding the mind and arguments of the other person and not that of enlightening him/her with one’s
own solutions.
More can be learned by listening than speaking. We must learn to appreciate the
complexity of even seemingly simple issues on which good and honest people disagree. This awareness
is particularly important in a democratic society such as ours where people enter into public debate to
determine the common good. Those with whom one disagrees should not necessarily be regarded as
enemies, but perhaps simply as people who suggest different paths to a common goal.
When a person feels strongly about an issue, he/she uses various types of techniques to persuade
others to agree with them. Some of these techniques appeal to the intellect, some to the emotions. Many
of them distract the listener or the reader from the real issues. Below are some of the examples of
argumentation tactics. Most of them can be used either to advance an argument in an honest, reasonable
way or to deceive or distract from the real issues. It is important for a critical reader to recognize these
tactics in order to evaluate rationally an author’s ideas.
1. Scare tactics: the threat that if you do or do not believe this, something terrible will happen.
2. Straw Person: distorting or exaggerating an opponent’s arguments to make one’s own seem stronger.
3. Bandwagon: the idea that ‘everybody’ does this or believes this.
4. Slanters: trying to persuade through inflammatory and exaggerated language instead of through reason.
5. Generalizations: using tactics or facts to generalize about a population, place, or thing.
6. Personal Attack: criticizing an opponent personally instead of rationally debating his or her ideas.
7. Categorical Statements: stating something in a way implying that there can be no argument.
As pointed out by Joseph Joubert, "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle
a question without debating it" (1978: 324). Probably the best way to become informed is to analyze the
positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every
variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth. Opinions from the mainstream of society should
be examined. But also important are opinions that are considered radical, reactionary, or minority as well
as those stigmatized by some other uncomplimentary label. An important lesson of history is the eventual
acceptance of many unpopular and even despised opinions. The ideas of Socrates and Galileo are good
examples of this.
To have a good grasp of one’s own viewpoint, it is necessary to understand the arguments of those
with whom one disagrees. It can be said that those who do not completely understand their adversary’s
point of view do not fully understand their own. A persuasive case for considering opposing viewpoints
has been presented by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. When examining controversial issues it
may be helpful to reflect on this suggestion:
The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a
subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety, and studying all
modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his
wisdom in any mode but this.
A pitfall to avoid in considering opposing points of view is that of regarding one’s own opinion
as being common sense and the most rational stance and the point of view of others as being only opinion
and naturally wrong. It may be that another’s opinion is correct and one’s own is in error.
Another pitfall to avoid is that of closing one’s mind to the opinions of those with whom one
disagrees. Dudley F. Malone used to say: "I have never in my life learned anything from any man who
agreed with me." The best way to approach a dialogue is to make one’s primary purpose that of
understanding the mind and arguments of the other person and not that of enlightening him/her with one’s
own solutions.
More can be learned by listening than speaking. We must learn to appreciate the
complexity of even seemingly simple issues on which good and honest people disagree. This awareness
is particularly important in a democratic society such as ours where people enter into public debate to
determine the common good. Those with whom one disagrees should not necessarily be regarded as
enemies, but perhaps simply as people who suggest different paths to a common goal.
