or: how philosophy finally managed a practical application
There are some very simple rules that you can follow while involved in an argument to keep the whole affair surgical, precise and as mess free as possible.
Sometimes we don’t want surgical, precise or mess free. We want the mess and the spittle; the War of the Roses wages with our tongues, casualty list inclusive, with a crater blasted front and no hope of retreat.
I understand this desire and I understand what motivates it. We can’t all be serial killers and sometimes, when life is a little dull and the midday movie just isn’t doing it for us, stimulus has to be a little more…stimulating.
BUT. If you want an argument to be constructive and an educational experience rather than dramatic catharsis, philosophers have provided us with ground rules that operate not a lot unlike the rules of chess. It allows us to keep track of where we’ve been, allows us to discern where we are going and most importantly gives us the tools necessary to keep tally and calculate a winning position. Unless, of course, you come to the age old impasse of agreeing to disagree (f**k I hate that!).
Deductive arguments are my favourite when it comes to speculative arguments. The reason is simple, the argument doesn’t have to be true, it just has to be valid. As long as your premises hold the conclusion is guaranteed and valid. Truth has very little to do with it.
What deductive arguments allow you to do is to keep the argument within the argument. You do not rely on anything extraneous to the words to support your argument or your ego. You do not rely on anything extraneous to the argument to undermine either the argument or ego of your opponent.
The statement “you are a silly twit” does not hold or count in a deductive argument unless it is a premises or sub premises of your argument. If it is than according to the rules you would have to prove that the other person is indeed a silly twit.
Example:
You failed your HSC (High School finals in NSW)
Everyone I know calls you a silly twit
Therefore, you are a silly twit
Your opponent could then counter argue your argument by disproving the premises that you built your conclusion on. As long as your opponent can successfully destroy one of your premises (if they are linked) or both (if they stand on their own), your assertion that your opponent is a silly twit would fold.
This is the beauty of deductive arguments. Everything is accountable and loose ends are nigh impossible if both are executing them properly. More importantly it makes it extremely difficult for the argument to get personal and nasty as long as both parties abide by the rules.
If not, the best analogy is one player in a game of chess tipping over the board and telling everyone that they're going home and that life isn’t fair. Not a good look, not a good argument.