Welcome to oneargumentplease.org, how can I help?

Just to clarify, were you after an aggressive
disagreement kind of argument, or a series of
statements that form a logical conclusion?

Ah, terribly sorry but we only offer the second kind

We’re a service provided by schoolofthought.org offering advice on arguments in the philosophical sense. Again, we do apologise for the confusion and wish you luck in finding some form of verbal conflict

Perhaps, however, it should be noted that the kind of argument you’re after is merely a bastardisation of the original meaning of the word and so it might be argued (see what I did there?) that in terms of etymological precedence, the kind of arguments we provide information on are a more relevant form

Well, see, you just formed an argument right there! I mean, it was crude and poorly articulated, but you created a logical structure comprising a series of statements that culminated in a conclusion. We all make arguments all the time without really realising it.

Now, where it gets interesting is that you used what is known as a logical fallacy, namely the bandwagon fallacy, to justify your conclusion. Logical fallacies are like flaws in reasoning, and so it might be said that your argument is weak.

So, a lot of people would think that you just committed another fallacy, specifically the Ad Hominem fallacy

However, because you weren’t forming an argument it doesn’t qualify as a fallacy; instead you were just reacting with a juvenile personal insult. To be a fallacy you would have to do something like call my character into question so as to undermine my argument or conclusion. You see, fallacies relate to the logical coherence and structure of an argument - something has to be wrong with the flow of logic. Interestingly, this means that you can use fallacies to argue for something that is actually a true claim, just as you can create an entirely coherent argument – with no fallacies at all – to support a claim that is false! This is why we have the Fallacy fallacy

Perhaps this chart might help to clarify:

As you can see, it shows the difference between deductive and inductive arguments. Essentially deductive arguments must be true as a result of their statements (aka premises), whereas inductive arguments are a matter of probability or interpretation. Here’s an example of a deductive argument:

All humans are mammals.
You are a human.
Therefore, you are a mammal.

Now, in this syllogism if the two premises are true, then it necessarily means that the conclusion has to be true also. You see?

As I’ve started to explain argumentation,
I feel compelled to not leave you with
only a partial understanding

Inductive arguments are the kind we’re more used to seeing, because they tend to be more ‘interpretive’ and a matter of opinion as to whether the argument is strong or weak, and the conclusion cogent. For an inductive argument to be cogent, it must have true premises and its structure must also result in a high probability of the conclusion being true. Here’s an example of an inductive argument:

You are evidently angry and rude. Many people cover up their own insecurities by attacking others. Therefore I think it’s probable that you are an insecure person who vents their aggression on the internet.

Well, yes - that does somewhat prove my point, but it isn’t a very good argument. It’s a non-sequitur, meaning ‘does not follow’ logically. To create a coherent argument with a cogent conclusion the logic has to follow a clear path of reason. Ironically, when both parties are constructing good arguments, it means that their discussion is usually less like an argument (in the common sense) and more like A Civil Conversation

Thank you for visiting www.oneargumentplease.org if you should ever wish to learn more about critical thinking, rationality and philosophy, please visit us again, or see our sister sites:

www.onecivilconversationplease.org
www.schoolofthought.org
www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com
www.acuriousquestion.com