There are people who understand this, and there are people who think you can just debate everything forever, and that the one with the most supporting points and references to Latin names of argumentative fallacies wins.
Alternatively, it's a great example because it makes the points so obvious. It takes practice to recognize these ways of arguing and thinking, and learning to see the most obvious form first can be followed more easily by identifying subtler forms.
I tell my design students that the only truly portable skill they will learn at university is the power to argue, which I frame as a 'super power'. From the article:
> "An argument should be a collaboration between two people to find the truth."
Well yes, it can certainly take that form. But I don't think that there is any shame to admitting that it can also be a way to get your own way. An argument can be an act of seduction, the aim of which is to seed novel ideas into the ether.
To me, it teaches somewhere in between- how to coach your argument in a form that will make it through people's mental firewalls. Sometimes you have to play to people a little bit to get them to actually hear what you want to say.
An argument is not always better just because it's more explicit, that's context dependent. People can deduce the chain of reasoning of the latter from the former, making the former a better argument if everyone is willing to think about each others' positions in good faith. Efficient and effective communication depends on shared understanding.
Learning how to do this is an essential skill. Most people are not idiots. If they disagree with you, it's probably not because they are being irrational, but because they're starting from a different premise, making different assumptions, or assigning different values to different aspects of the problem. Only when you understand their argument well enough to articulate it in your own words can you effectively present a counter-argument that has a chance of being persuasive.
reply