How Incomplete Arguments Are a Disservice to Your Cause

Bernie Sanders recently posted a tweet. It read:

When we talk about income and wealth inequality in America today, this is what we’re talking about.

Right now, the two wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 40%. Got that? TWO PEOPLE own more wealth than 40% of our people.

Is that remotely acceptable to you?

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1479586559720673287 🔗

The replies were filled with simple, yes or no answers. This is an example of a common problem with modern argumentation, which can be seen from all over the political spectrum. The problem is that people posing an argument—politicians, pundits, and even average, everyday people—all-too-frequently do not actually pose an argument. Instead, they spit out a random data point or other piece of evidence and don’t connect it to any kind of thesis, thus forming an incomplete argument—or really, not forming an argument at all.

Let’s look at another example. There is an infamous clip of Ben Shapiro “debating” a random college student on abortion and trans rights. It’s a long video which I won’t address all of in this article, but the portion I’ve linked to is an example of what I’m talking about. Shapiro asks the student her age, then says, “Why aren’t you 60?” The student responds with confusion, because Shapiro has just done what I’m talking about: he’s provided a piece of what seems like evidence, without providing any kind of link to a thesis. While he does go on to provide some semblance of a link, he should have done so in the first place. In fact, he actually made a follow-up video where he completed his argument (which I do not agree with, and can still be easily defeated because what he’s saying is factually incorrect, but that’s a whole separate article).

The problem with both of these is twofold. First, they are a form of dog whistling.¹ They do this by stating a piece of evidence which the portion of the audience that agrees with the person posing the “argument” (or lack thereof) will already understand as negative, and already understand why it—in their opinion—is negative, but that the rest of the audience will not. This allows them to confuse the people arguing against them, and make them look bad. It is exploitive. Second, it ultimately does a disservice to the cause being argued for. Because only those who are already familiar with the argument and agree with it are being addressed, the “argument” does not actually convince anyone listening—and therefore, does not bring anyone new to the cause. Ultimately, this way of “arguing” is exploitive and a disservice to the cause being argued for.

Comments are below citations. 🔗