The Opposite Arguments
Many young people assume that when one person talks, the automatic reaction of others is to
listen. A charming idea, yes, but a quick glance around the average classroom or lecture hall
should be enough to convince you that it ain't necessarily so. And, in fact, as U.S. humorist Fran
Leibowitz so aptly pointed out, the opposite of talking is not listening; the opposite of talking is
waiting!
For what? Perhaps for the talker to shut up so that we can all return to "Wheel of Fortune" or to
sleep; perhaps for an excuse to leave to suggest itself; perhaps for a lottery win so that one may
move to a non talking neighborhood. Most likely, however, the listener / reader is waiting for a
chance to disagree.
We love to disagree. Perhaps this is a reflection of the fact that we live in a society that seems to
spend most of its time trying to sell us things, and so, we have developed the habit of being "on
guard". Perhaps we are simply ornery, and determined to show how different we are. Yet
whatever the source of our apparent hostility to the ideas of others, if we can find the slightest
chink in someone's logical armor, we tend to be onto it like a shark at a tuna convention. We are in
constant search for the perfect "Yes, but..." opportunity.
The careful writer recognizes one fact of life above all others. Once a piece has been published, it
is on its own. You cannot be there with it, hovering like a mother over the reader's shoulder, reader
to counter every "Aha! Gotcha!" with a "What I meant to say was...". The only chance you have to
anticipate and deal with the opposite side is before the opposite side knows its the opposite side.
How do you do this? Fortunately, this part of the writing task, like all parts of the writing task, is
easy. Imagine the following scenario. You are trying to obtain your version of the family car from
your version of "Superparent" Let's assume, for reality's sake, that your version of the family car is
not some megabuck ego fantasy on wheels. You approach Superparent with your best "I'm
Important" strut, the one you practiced so hard and so thoroughly in grade eleven. To the strut, you
add the merest hint of Sneer Number Five, for you remember that Sneers Number One through
Four are reserved for use against teachers. You address the supine couch potato thus:
"Hey, you!"
"Yes, my darling child, repository of all my dreams, guardian of my genetic code.
Speak to me!"
"I got, like, dis party tonight. You know, like major action. Like, all rude dudes and
slick chicks - no geeks, ya know? So, I, like, gotta be there. Like, they need me to
show 'em how to party, right? So, like, where's the car keys?"
"Ah, child of hope and prayer, you who are the holiest of holies, and for whom I
breathe, I would be thrilled to allow you access to the treasured chariot, BUT,
alas, please refer to excuse number two hundred and thirty six."
"Look, ferret face..."
"Is it to me you speak, young imp of Satan?"
And so on, ad nauseum; ad infinitum.
What does the above almost true to life scenario prove? What may the student writer learn from
this unfortunate glimpse at the sordid side of family life? A number of important things...
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
that "tone of voice" exists AND
that tone of voice is an important part of writing strategy.
that "approach" exists AND
that how to approach your audience is a key decision.
that "respect for difference" exists, AND
that to your audience, respect for difference is a must.
Superparent in our little drama represents the typical reading or listening audience. However
wrong, misguided, unreasonable, reactionary, or fat headed you assume Superparent is, you will not
bring this individual around to your side by letting these feelings be known. Superparent, like most
individuals, feels that he or she is reasonable, intelligent, long suffering and stressed. An audience
composed of Superparents will not accept a patronizing tone, overdone emotion, or abuse. Nor will
it easily accept being lectured to. It will almost never accept propaganda. It will be thrown off
stride - not a pretty sight - by too bold or too naked a declaration of the argument.
You, the writer, must overcome this sensitivity by recognizing the fact that it exists, and by playing
to your audience's perception of itself. In other words, you will generally have to admit that other
arguments exist that contradict your own, and that as a reasonable beings, your audience knows that
those arguments exist and has considered them.
Let's assume you are facing an audience of your peers - not a pretty sight - and that you are all
gathered in a hot, dusty classroom - not a pretty site! Your task, O fortunate Being, is to argue in
favour of toughening the process by which one gains the right to drive a car in something other than
one's dreams. Carefully you select an approach strategy from the grab bag of those available, and
you decide to use the preferred style of the truly desperate - the "BEAT 'EM OVER THE HEAD
'TIL THEY BLEED" approach.
"Friends, the right to drive in this great province of ours must be controlled. It cannot simply be
granted to every irresponsible twit who manages to live sixteen consecutive years. It is criminal to
continue to allow the carnage on our roads to continue, carnage caused largely by irresponsible
young drivers. Teens are simply too impatient, too susceptible to peer pressure, too prone to panic.
We must act now.
Audience reaction? Tomatoes. Large, ripe, juicy ones!
Once the remnants of all this ripe fruit has been cleaned up or concealed, the audience response will
become more rational. A variety of points will be made:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
that all of these points are stereotypes
that the tone is far too emotional
that many teens take safe driving courses
that most accidents are caused by non teens
that impatience, immaturity, and panic are common responses by people of all ages.
The resulting impression of the writer and the work is negative. This reaction could easily have
been avoided had the writer varied the tone, and had mention been made of the very valid points
outlined in a, c, d, and e above; the points that contradict the speaker's intent; the opposite
arguments.
Now consider the second attempt to present a potentially unpopular thesis statement to a potentially
hostile audience:
As adolescents, we are used to being labeled with unfair stereotypes. We are used to being told
that we are too immature to be given responsibilities, too impatient to be trusted, too emotional
to respond logically and rationally in a crisis situation. We are also aware of the fact that
sometimes, the stereotype is true. There are many teens who fit the image. We see them
everyday: on the streets; on television; in the halls of our schools. We would rather not see them
behind the steering wheel.
Yet most adolescents, like most adults, are reasonable people. And we are as responsible as any
other group for the safe and efficient running of this society. Like any other group, we must
shoulder some of the costs of making sure that that safety and efficiency continue to exist. So
while yes, the average adolescent can't wait to drive, can't wait to get behind the wheel of that
new, red Mercedes, can't wait to throw away those bus tickets, and while we would point out
that the majority of problems on the road are caused by adults, not adolescents, we are not so
foolish or unreasonable as to feel that we can ignore the reality of the carnage we see every
night on the news. And we accept the fact that the careless older driver was once the careless
younger driver. Thus, like other reasonable beings, most adolescents would likely argue in
favour of a non discriminatory toughening up of the process by which an individual acquires
the right to drive.
What did this writer do that kept the tomatoes concealed in their brown paper homes? The only
difference is that care was taken to acknowledge and deal with the opposite arguments:
1) Yes, some adolescents are a, b, and c.
2) Yet stereotypes exist, and are unfair.
3) Yes, many accidents are the fault of teens.
4) Yet many more are not.
5) Yes, teens do hunger to drive!
6) Yet teens are also responsible citizens, concerned with public safety.
The writer simply anticipated the arguments most adolescents might raise against the idea of
tougher restrictions on the right to drive, and dealt with those arguments before anyone else had an
opportunity to do so. The opposite arguments "stole the thunder" of those who would oppose.
What they would say has already been said. Not only that, it has been said by someone who went
on and called them reasonable and patriotic. They have been portrayed as noble individuals, willing
to sacrifice personal ease and convenience for the public good, and this despite the fact that that
same public has been so unfairly nasty to them. Blow the trumpets! Look! Up in the sky! Is it a
bird? Is it a plane? No! Its Superteen, modern day saint and all around nice person!
Will your audience now rush the stage, pleading to be the first to be noble. No! You will never win
over an entire audience, or even most of the audience, by throwing in a few opposite arguments.
But they will have been impressed by you reasonable tone, by your honesty, by your willingness to
look at both sides of the argument, by your refusal to indulge in bombast, and by your obvious
respect for their intelligence. They will listen long enough to hear what you have to say. If you can
accomplish that when you speak or write, you have accomplished a great deal indeed.
By all means, blow the trumpets!
Thus, if you are writing in favour of medical marijuana, make sure you know about and include the
reasons against. If you are claiming that the Blue Jays are Canada's top sport's franchise, make sure
that you make specific and reverent mention of Les Canadiens. If you are asking Superparent for
your own phone, acknowledge - preferably on your knees - the incredible sacrifices that have
already been made on your behalf.
Otherwise, be prepared for an eager audience to listen or to read patiently, not so that they may
applaud, not so that they may carry you forth in triumph upon their shoulders, but for that golden
opportunity to rise, to throw back their heads, to raise their fists, and with joy exuding from every
pore - not a pretty sight - to scream, in unison, "See, stupid, you're wrong!"
Positioning the Critters
Having decided to consider the necessity of opposite claims in the essay or argument, what do you
actually do with the little beasties? Where do they go? How do you introduce them?
The "where do they go" question is best answered by some quick reflection about strategy and
purpose. Your purpose is to gain audience acceptance of your position on some issue. Your chosen
strategy - if you are including opposite arguments - is to acknowledge the existence of arguments
other than your own, in order to get that audience over the initial "What are you trying to put over
on us" attitude. You are not - I repeat, NOT - trying to either confuse them, or to get them to agree
with the opposite side, thereby achieving irony but little more. You want your pro claims, in
particular, your strongest pro claim, to be the next - to - last - word on the subject. The absolute
last word will be the concluding paragraph, and opposite arguments never go in the conclusion.
Therefore, opposite arguments tend to come immediately after the statement or claim to which they
refer. They are normally introduced by transitional words like "admittedly" or "granted", or by
phrases such as, "Obviously, exceptions to this can be found." The opposite argument itself is
normally followed by a few brief pieces of support.
Now comes the kicker! The opposite claims are sitting there on the paper, grinning at you. You
want to get back to the pro claims quickly, but what you have at the moment is a definite "loose
end". What you also have is a choice. Having made the opposite arguments, you may now either
concede or rebut them
Concession
To concede the opposite arguments is to accept their truth. This is not as crazy as it sounds. First,
the whole purpose for the opposite arguments is to indicate that there is more than one side. To then
turn around, dismiss the claims, and basically say, "I was only foolin' folks. There's really only one
side", is to indulge in unnecessary dopiness. This can leave the reader with the nagging suspicion
that what you are saying sounds too good to be true. And there is simply no need to dismiss or
disprove all the opposite arguments. All you are doing when you make a concession is saying,
"Yes, the above arguments are true, and many accept them, but the arguments which follow are just
as strong or stronger, and reasonable individuals will at least consider them."
Rebuttal
It will, of course, sometimes be necessary to dispense with the Mr./Ms Nice Person Approach to
the other side of the argument. There will be times when you decide to rebut the opposite
arguments. To rebut is to answer the opposite arguments, and while there are a number of subtle
and very effective ways of doing this, ways you will discover as you continue to develop reading
and writing skills, for now the best way of rebutting is to attack the opposite argument as soon as it
is made.
To rebut or not to rebut is the writer's decision. Generally it will depend on the strength or the
nature of the opposite argument. You must never concede a opposite argument that is sexist or
racist. Claims of that type are easily and necessarily rebutted. Another good rule of thumb is to
rebut any opposite argument that seems to promise an easy, cheap, painless, profitable, and happy
ending to a serious problem. No one wants to work harder or sacrifice more than is necessary, so
simplistic "pie in the sky" claims sound attractive. You cannot afford to concede them.
Lets take a look at a silly and simple example of concession and rebuttal. What follows is the
opposite argument section of an essay. The opposite arguments refer to the statement. In each case,
the opposite arguments came immediately after the statement, and before the pro claims. In the
first example, the opposite arguments are conceded. In the second, they are rebutted.
Version One
Thesis Statement: Partial baldness has several surprising advantages
Opposite arguments: Admittedly, baldness has certain disadvantages as well. Canada's climate
can be cruel to exposed body parts. The top of the head is as exposed as anyplace else. In addition,
if one is forced to earn one's living in the company of lower life forms, for example, high school
students, one may encounter a certain amount of hostility and insensitivity. One may be asked
questions like, "How do you keep it so shiny?" or "May I autograph it?" And it cannot be denied
that the most significant disadvantage is the undue speculation it raises concerning the number of
years one has been on the planet.
Concession: Yet while all of the above examples of the sadder side of baldness are, sadly, true ...
Restatement: ...the fact remains that there are just as many, if not more, advantages.
Version Two
Opposite arguments: Admittedly, baldness may seem to have certain disadvantages as well.
Canada's climate can be cruel to exposed body parts. The top of the head is as exposed as anyplace
else. In addition, if one is forced to earn one's living in the company of lower life forms, for
example, high school students, one may encounter a certain amount of hostility and insensitivity.
One may be asked questions like, "How do you keep it so shiny?" or "May I autograph it?" And it
cannot be denied that the most significant apparent disadvantage is the undue speculation it raises
concerning the number of years one has been on the planet.
Rebuttal: Yet these "disadvantages" are actually blessings in disguise. For example, bald people
know that it is raining long before the heavily hairy. One drip, and we're into the bus shelter,
grinning at those who have to wait until the message trickles down. And as for students who make
cruel bald jokes, this greatly simplifies the process of deciding who will and will not get a nasty
end of semester surprise. As far as suggestions of advanced age are concerned, one cannot help but
notice the fact that those who look old are often given far more respect than they deserve; this
cannot help but be good for the ego.
Restatement: For the truly meaningful advantages of baldness , however, one must look farther
afield.
The difference between concession (version one) and rebuttal (version two) should be clear. You
should note the fact that the rebuttal in version two was done by defeating the opposite argument
with its own support. The writer did not bring in the pro claims to defeat the negative. The opposite
argument about exposure to the elements was defeated by a described advantage of exposure to the
elements, not by reference to a financial advantage of baldness.
And you need to remember, finally, that opposing arguments can appear within each claim, as well
as in a paragraph coming after the thesis.
I hope the above makes it clearer than it needed to be.
Cheers!