Thinking Critically in a Debate

Challenges Faced in Preparing for the Debate
Four challenges I faced in preparing for the debate were: 1) understanding the logic of my own argument—i.e., identifying the premise, assuring myself of its validity, and constructing my argument so that it logically followed from the premise to the conclusion; 2) identifying the counter-argument; 3) understanding the counter-argument’s logical fallacies and/or invalid premise; and 4) rebutting the counter-argument.
The first challenge for me—understanding my own argument, its premise and its logic—was difficult because it required a deep understanding of the subject and all the various sides and aspects of it. A superficial grasp of the subject would not do. I had to understand it fully in order to argue it, and I had to ensure that my argument was based on a valid premise. This was the first challenge, and I knew that my argument depended on doing the research, so I had to read up the subject very thoroughly.
The second challenge consisted of knowing what the counter-argument would be. I had to read contrary opinions and see where they were coming from—i.e., what premise they were starting from. This led to the third challenge, which was understanding the counter-argument and why it was faulty—i.e., how it was either based on a faulty premise or used faulty logic to reach its conclusion. Once I did this I faced the fourth challenge: using this understanding to develop a rebuttal for the counter-argument. By understanding how the counter-argument proceeded, I was able to see its weaknesses and prepare my rebuttal accordingly. I located the faulty premise and showed how it was based on a logical fallacy instead of on rational observation. That helped significantly in overcoming the challenge.
Four Ways I Would Have Prepared Differently for the Debate
Had I not had this class, I probably would have prepared differently for the debate by adopting more persuasive techniques than argumentative techniques. This most likely would have happened unconsciously. Arguments depend upon reason and research, whereas persuasion can be conducted by using all manner of appeals—such as emotional appeals or other means which are consistently rooted in logical fallacies. Many of my arguments would have more than likely been conceived in one sort of logical fallacy or another. I would have proceeded in this manner nonetheless because I would have thought that my technique was persuasive, not realizing that the point was to be argumentative. I see that there is a difference now between being argumentative and being persuasive. One can certainly argue persuasively without arguing logically. A logical argument cannot be countered by logical fallacies.
So I probably would have stumbled out of the gate, missing the entire point and purpose of the exercise. I also would have neglected to take consideration for the counter-argument. This is an important part of a debate and I more than likely would have wholly focused on my own end of the argument without realizing I needed to also consider my opponent’s.
With these things I mind, I would prepare little differently next time by planning for multiple counter-arguments and memorizing all the logical fallacies that we studied in class. Knowing all the logical fallacies and how they can be recognized in a debate can be very helpful at dismantling an opponent’s argument.
Class Lessons
Four class lessons that helped me during the debate were 1) to remember to stay on topic, 2) to read critically, 3) to try to identify the logical fallacy either in your own argument or in your opponent’s, and 4) to avoid contradicting yourself and your premise.
Each of these lessons was helpful in that I was able to better understand the approach to take in the debate. By staying on topic, I could focus on the subject and really use supporting evidence to reinforce the argument. It would have been easy to go off on tangents, but every tangent would have distracted from the actual point of the argument and thus made the argument less effective.
I also learned to read critically. This is an essential part of preparation, as John Chaffee shows in Thinking Critically. Asking questions and using a problem solving approach are all part of reading critically, as Chaffee states (76) and doing this helped me to form an effective approach to the argument.
I was also better able to analyze the issues and this helped me to identify logical fallacies that avoided the issues. The issues became clear the more critically one read and thought about the subject, and when an argument proceeded that deviated from the issues and launched into a separate idea that did not logically stem from the subject, it was pretty obvious that a logical fallacy had been committed, so the lesson also taught me to look for that.
I also learned to not contradict myself by discerning my “lens” and seeing how perceptions can be shaped by looking at things through a precise lens (Chaffee 137). By trying to be as objective as possible and avoid making assumptions about a specific topic, I was better able to approach the topic rationally and without bias. If I had a pre-formulated opinion about an issue I decided to go into it with an open mind and act as though I had never heard anything of it before. I looked to base my argument on the facts and the knowledge that I constructed while researching it.
What I Learned about Myself
What I learned about myself and my ability to think critically throughout the debate was that it takes a lot of energy to stay focused and critical during a debate. You have to have the mental stamina to stay on top of things—but you also have to be able to stay calm and rational. It is easy to let your emotions get the better of you and to launch into ad hominem attacks, especially when you just want to dismiss your opponent as silly for making a bad argument. Really, the ad hominem attack stems from a laziness of thought—a lack of ability to engage with a poorly constructed argument and show why it is invalid or based on a logical fallacy. Instead of deconstructing the opponent’s argument, I just wanted to do an ad hominem attack and dismiss my opponent out of hand because this was easier and quicker than showing why the argument was flawed.
So I learned that in order to be a successful debater, you have to have patience both with yourself and with your opponent. It doesn’t help at all to rush through with your thinking. You have to apply yourself in everything you do and whether you are critically reading or thinking about the facts and evidence that support an argument or whether you are using a logical fallacy, you cannot slack off and tune out. You have to stay on top of the issue and not stop paying attention. It is easy to dismiss a line of thought—much easier than actually stopping to think about it, examine it, and say why it is incorrect. What I mainly learned about myself was that I have a tendency to do just that but when I do apply myself I see how effective a good critical examination can really be.
Applying What I Learned
Three examples that demonstrate my application of what I learned in this Critical Thinking class to my life are: 1) at work when my co-worker tried to that a new plan for organizing the workplace was stupid and dumb, I was able to deconstruct her argument and show why it was actually a very good idea that would eliminate inefficiencies, 2) with my friend, when he tried to vent his frustration with his own failings by getting angry at me, I was able to show why his anger towards me was unjustified and that his unhappiness was actually stemming from something else in his life that he was not dealing with successfully (bringing this subject up and critically thinking about why he was not happy also led to a very fruitful discussion and I was able to show that I understood his problems and was there to help support him, which he really appreciated—so the evening when from one where we were at odds with one another to one which ended with us coming together and acting like really good friends); and 3) with my parents: I was able to explain to my dad why the medication he was taking was not really helping with his ailments but were in fact actually making him less healthy. We did some research on the Internet and decided that he should start looking into homeopathic treatments and more natural remedies. After a couple weeks he actually started feeling a lot better—so my ability to apply my Critical Thinking skills to his health situation and see that the premise of his—namely that doctors are always right and know what they are doing—was incorrect, as a lot of what doctors prescribe is tied directly in with what pharmaceutical companies are doing (Goldhill; Katz; Mariani). So that was another instance that really helped me see how great Critical Thinking can be in the real world.
Works Cited
Chaffee, John. Thinking Critically. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012.
Goldhill, D. “How American health care killed my father.” The Atlantic, 2009.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/307617/
Katz, J. “Drug deaths in America are rising faster than ever.” The New York
Times, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html?_r=0
Mariani, M. “How the American opiate epidemic was started by one
pharmaceutical company.” The Week, 2015. http://theweek.com/articles/541564/how-american-opiate-epidemic-started-by-pharmaceutical-company