24.1: Readings- Countering the opposing viewpoints by H. Morrison

Countering the opposing viewpoints

A counterargument is simply an argument that is counter to (or opposite of) the argument you are presenting. Counterarguments can be oppositional to your entire thesis/argument, a sub-point of your argument, or even some nuance of a sub-point or sub-argument.

Engaging with a counterargument is usually abbreviated as “counterarguing.” When you provide a counterargument in your essay, you are actually doing four things: presenting the oppositional point of view, conceding, refuting the point, and then returning to your thesis/point.

Why are they necessary?

The ability to successfully present, concede, and refute a counterargument is an excellent rhetorical strategy and evidence of strong critical thinking skills. It also shows that you understand your topic and the conversation around your topic.

It is an important way to strengthen your argument by engaging both ethos and logos.

How to choose a counterargument

Only consider counterarguments that are logical and rational. Your counterargument must be reasonable and valid. Can you actually concede to some aspect of their argument rationally and logically, while remaining aligned with the consensus?

It’s typically not a good argument if it is against a premise of your argument. One, doing so may weaken your argument. Two, it may not be a credible, logical argument, and therefore it’s not worth addressing or refuting.

While you may not always need to cite a source for your opponent’s argument, the argument should not be imaginary. It should be a realistic argument that many people make or believe.

Refuting, or conceding, to the argument should not take you far off your own point; if the counterargument demands that you start talking about another topic to refute it, reconsider using that argument.

There are likely many arguments against your thesis and sub-arguments. Some of them, perhaps many, are not valid because they are based in faith/religious belief, pseudoscience, or outright antisocial prejudices and beliefs. None of these are good choices for counterarguments.

Example: Your topic is long Covid, your working thesis is:

Because long COVID is most prevalent in women, and more often occurs in BIPOC communities, it has been under researched; without awareness raising now and allocation of funds, long Covid may have devastating mental, physical, and economic effects on BIPOC communities throughout the US for decades to come.

Which, if any, of these would be good counterarguments for you to refute?

1. You find a source discussing how some people do not believe that COVID 19 is a real viral infection, and subsequently, they do not believe that long Covid is a disease.
2. A source argues that there are worse things “plaguing” BIPOC communities, like police violence and general racism, than long Covid, so it should not be a focal point in education or funding.
3. A source argues that because Long Covid is similar to other known diseases that are lifelong and severely debilitating, there likely is not much value in focusing a lot of resources into research and treatments since the treatments for those known illnesses may be sufficient.

Item 1) is not a good choice of counterargument because it’s against an unstated premise of the argument—that COVID and long COVID do indeed exist. There is no point in refuting this because it does not strengthen your argument. Refuting it would only prove that COVID and long COVID exist, which is a given in your argument.

Item 2) is also not a good choice of counterargument. Because it discusses other topics, like police violence and “general” racism, it may take you far away from your argument. You will end up having to say that anti-black police violence, or racism in general, is equally important as or less important than funding research into long COVID—which is probably not something you want to argue.

Item 3) is the best choice for a counterargument. It does not argue against a premise, it does not make you stray from your topic: the crux of this argument is that we do not need more resources for long COVID research, but you say we do. This is debatable and will advance your argument.

Parts of the counterargument

Counterarguments must:

1. Present the oppositional point of view (the counterargument).
2. Concede.
3. Refute the point.
4. Return to your thesis/point.

Let’s break down these steps.

1. Present the oppositional point of view (the counterargument).

Present and explain the argument. This should be 2-3 sentences. It’s crucial that you accurately present the argument and do not fall prey to logical fallacies! If you cannot counter the argument as it is (without manipulating it), do not select it as a counterargument!

Sometimes, depending on the assignment or the nature of your counterpoint, you may have a source for your counterargument. Other times, you may not: your counterargument may be a general idea shared by many.

2. Concede.

We are used to hearing about political candidates who “concedes” after an election, meaning they agree they have lost the election, and their opponent has won. A concession in counterarguing is not an admittance of defeat—at all. A concession is actually a thing that is granted in response to intense demands: it is not a granting of all of the demands.

In counterarguments, the concession is where you give your opponents some ground: you say what is correct or accurate about their argument. Why do this? For one, it’s fair and respectful. Ideas worth considering at all are rarely completely incorrect. In the concession, you point out what you do agree with in the counterargument. Secondly, offering a concession increases your ethos even more. Exhibiting respect, being fair and balanced in your perspectives, and also being open, all convey admirable characteristics from the writer.

Your concession should be no more than two sentences, however. While we want to be fair and balanced, we also do not want to lose our persuasiveness.

3. Refute the point.

In this part, you will clearly demonstrate the flaws in the argument of the counterargument. Be specific and logical: use outside sources, use your own logic. Explain your reasoning carefully and stick to the points made in the counterargument. Never resort attacking the character of the counter arguer, or any other logical fallacies.

4. Return to your argument/thesis/point.

This is the most intuitive part—you will return to making your argument on your own terms. This part should logically flow with the 3 counterargument parts before it.