From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

Everyone participates in arguments or debates from time to time and, thus, understands the need to be able to defend their positions. Some may do this well and others may do it poorly, but this doesn’t mean that they actually understand what it is they are supposed to be defending in the first place. This may sound strange, but it’s more common than many realize.

The difficult part in an argument is not to defend one’s opinion, but rather to know it.
- Andre Maurois, quoted in Frederic B. Wilcox, A Little Book of Aphorisms (1947).

A standard feature in learning about logic, arguments, and critical thinking is learning how to properly construct arguments so that they do a good job at defending a particular position. That is, after all, the point of an argument: to establish the truth or at least the likely truth of a particular proposition. While there is no doubt that all of this is important, too great of a focus upon it can allow one to miss a critical ingredient: actually knowing what it is you are supposed to be defending in the first place.

Now, this may seem obvious — so obvious, in fact, that it’s pointless to waste time on it. It’s just that attitude that the quotation from Maurois should chasten us not to adopt so quickly. By neglecting it, we can easily allow a problem to develop. Before we can construct a sound argument supporting a position, we need to be absolutely clear just what it is we wish to defend.

Unfortunately, it’s not all that unusual for a person to find themselves in the middle of a debate, lost and directionless, because they have lost sight of the position they are advocating. Too often, they may not have ever had it well in sight to begin with — some launch into debates with only vague notions of what they are talking about.

There are many factors which can contribute to our failure to be clear on what our positions are: the vagueness of terms we are using, not bothering to clearly set down what we mean, an inability to express our ideas coherently, etc. In school, it’s common for students learning how to write essays and papers to be instructed that they should always first set down a “thesis,” some position which they are planning to discuss or defend. Whatever habits are developed in doing this are quickly lost, but perhaps it would be wise to resurrect them.

If everyone began their argument with some sort of thesis statement, then no only would they be clear on what opinion they are defending, but so would everyone else. This brings significant benefits because it may help eliminate misunderstandings, force the arguer to be clearer on what is meant, and may even allow others to hold the arguer responsible for shifting their terms and ideas later of when they find themselves in trouble (yes, some people do try this tactic).

Something else that would probably be helpful is to spend more time thinking about the definitions of key concepts. Far too many people engage in debates about things like God, freedom, and terrorism without first defining what they mean by those terms. Because they aren't clear, it's possible for everyone to be discussing slightly different concepts and, thus, talking past each other. That happens on a regular basis and can be avoided with just a bit of foresight and preparation.