Keywords: argument, rhetoric
About 950 words or 3 pages
Occasionally one gets called on to
address some topic off the cuff. This happens more frequently if you’re head of
an association and especially if you have “Dr.” as a title (and here’s a
secret: a doctorate is a credential of stamina, not of intellect). I got marked recently to spontaneously
address a crowd at church in answer to a question about a controversial topic.
The topic is not of consequence here, for I speak to you of the method of
argument—no matter the subject.
First, here’s
an acronym for you to memorize:
FDRQ. Just think FDR and then add
a Q. This approach is a concise use of the classics with a smidge of modern
legal rhetoric thrown in, and I borrow from Jay Heinrichs’ amusing treatment in
Thank you for Arguing.
You may
have heard this method from a lawyer: if
the facts aren’t with you, argue the definition; if the definition isn’t with
you, argue the relevance; and if the relevance isn’t with you, question the
other side. That’s it in a nutshell (the
facts), now let’s unpack it a bit (the definition), see how it’s used
(relevance), and try to avoid any ad hominem attacks against you
personally (questions).
In our
scenario here, I was called upon to analyze a topic in the Bible without any preparation
time. I applied our little acronym,
which is useful for quick analysis of most any content. What are the facts? As applied to literature, this really becomes
what is the face value.
I said, “I don’t know off hand all
of the verses dealing with this topic, perhaps someone here can list them for
us, but let’s get those out on the table,” then we have the “facts” or “face
value.”
The
next step is obvious, but costly. We now
try to define those facts. What do the words actually mean? And for this we must know something of the
context? This is where a lot of behind
the scenes research would often need to be done—and done with respect. For example, the four words “Thou shalt not
kill,” would need to be understood in the Hebrew; do we mean ‘kill’ as in take
the life of anything (a plant, an animal, a microbe?) or is it only meant as
murder? The original language and
content must be understood. Another
example would be “follow the science.”
As one from the sciences, I chuckle when I hear this. Which
science? Define that please. Ah, you must mean settled science? Well, it might take a long while for the
precipitate to settle in that test tube.
This
brings us to relevance. Be careful, this is when the disingenuous—if they
failed to attack well in the F (Fact)
and D (Definition) phases—will now fire their last bullets of
reason.
I said, “You asked how those rules
in an old, limited section can even be relevant anymore? An analogy of what you ask: I’m driving down the road in New Jersey and
get pulled over for speeding. I appear in court. Your Honor, please show me in
the law book where speeding is illegal. The judge opens the book and points to
the section in the code. Suppose I know my stuff and then say, Your Honor,
please turn to section such and such in that same book, and you’ll see that it
is illegal to milk a cow on the second floor of a house here in your garden
state. Now how can you possibly enforce anything in that silly book?”
In the
F and D moments, the argument was only on the actual text/idea in question by
itself (in vacuo). Now, all sorts of analogies and tricks of argument
come forth. Try to make sure those tricks are limited to this R (Relevance)
phase—delay them until the F and D phases are explored. Otherwise, one never
explores fully the topic, but gets derailed by some polemic (i.e., tricky
method). Churchill was a master at this (I paraphrase): “remember, madam, I may be drunk and you may
be ugly, but I shall be sober in the morning.”
In other words, he ceded the fact and definition of his being drunk, but
this is irrelevant to the permanence of her ugliness.
Actually,
this quip does double duty: shows irrelevance and moves into Q territory, that
is, it Questions the speaker. In today’s world, especially with barely literate
social media, the first three phases of what could be intelligent debate are
skipped altogether. We go straight to
questioning the validity of the other side. These are labelled ad hominem
attacks (Latin for “to the man”). Things get made personal right away.
Arguments with familiar people or a pre-labelled “side” can move quickly to this phase. This is
regrettable; yes, it may save some time, but leaves all intellect behind. It
replays what happened before on an endless loop and allows for little
progress.
Let’s
take the real FDR (that is Franklin Delano Roosevelt) as an example. Someone
touts the New Deal as policy successes, and the response comes in argument, “you
mean those policies enacted by the same president who locked up all our
Japanese citizens in concentration camps?”
Now there’s an irrelevant R and Q, but illustrates a popular tactic
today.
As an
association exec who argues on the Hill on occasion (back before Zoom calls
proved much more lucrative for Members of Congress than meeting folks in
person), I recognize a clever form of Q in how bills before Congress are
labelled. Some proposed legislation
might be titled the Save-the-Universe Act--meaning that if you aren’t for it,
you then must be against saving the universe, you slimeball! No matter how you feel about his policies or
war time actions, we need more FDR and less Q.
©Copyright 2022. JP Harrison. All rights reserved.
