The 3 Essential Methods For Counter-Arguing (And Getting Ahead)

Rhetoric is inherently dynamic. Any argument you present can be countered. his is especially true in conversations, where your interlocutor can challenge you at any time. Even in a monologue, your audience silently debates your points in their minds.

To be persuasive, remember that 'the opposite is always true'.

This mindset prevents us from becoming too convinced that our arguments are the strongest in terms of logic and effectiveness.

Each argument has its counter-arguments. Similarly, when a speaker makes a point that raises doubts, reservations, or disagreements within us, we should be ready to articulate our opposition. We can also offer clarifications, nuances, or corrections.

Counter-arguing is not about conflict; it’s the essence of rhetoric. Counter-arguing has nothing to do with conflict. On the contrary: it's the natural order of rhetoric. Today, we’ll explore three types of objections: those that question the argument's validity, those that highlight inconsistencies, and those aimed at discrediting the speaker.

1. Challenging the credibility of an argument

The ability to directly challenge the original argument is a fundamental skill.

Challenging an argument involves not only evaluating its validity but also questioning its pertinence and impact. This type of objection works in both deliberative (generating collective intelligence) and competitive contexts (ensuring your own viewpoint prevails).

Be cautious when using this type of opposition to challenge an argument's rigor. If the other person proves your statement is factually or logically incorrect and you cannot refute it, it will be difficult for you not to retract your argument. Indeed, if you maintain an argument that lacks rigor, you could be accused of bad faith or, even worse, of being foolish! Alternatively, if your argument is deemed ineffective and your interlocutor says it's reductive, incomplete, or superficial, you can still easily uphold your position with a skillful objection.

Ultimately, always keep in mind that your counter-argument will quickly be met with another counter, creating a perpetual attack-defense cycle, with only one result: success or failure in convincing.

Case study: After a year spent in a large technology company as a junior sales representative, you believe you deserve a substantial salary increase. You request a meeting with the human resources director. When she receives you, you present your case, pointing out that your sales have increased the team’s revenue by 20%, yet you remain one of the lowest-paid sales representatives (initial argument based on a comparison between contributions). After listening attentively, your interlocutor nods: your contributions are indeed noteworthy (agreement on the facts). However, in this company, salary adjustments are based on company-wide performance reviews conducted biannually: an exceptional increase would be outside the usual review cycle (objection attacking efficiency by tradition). You’re taken aback: didn’t one of your colleagues receive a significant raise just six months ago outside the review cycle (objection attacking rigor by precedent)? Your interlocutor appears uncomfortable, hesitates, then acknowledges: it’s true that there have been exceptions in the past (objection by tradition abandoned due to lack of rigor). But this doesn’t change the situation: the company's current focus on budget cuts makes it impossible to grant an exceptional increase this year (new objection attacking efficiency of your initial argument by the economy). You remain silent, carefully contemplating your next response...

Decoding:

At the end of this discussion, what do you decide to do? Will you be convinced by the argument of the human resources director? Or will you return to your initial argument, whose rigor has never been contradicted (extraordinary results deserve exceptional compensation)? Be careful to only engage on this path after careful consideration.

The risk is that an irreducible disagreement between your rigorous but divergent arguments may arise. Indeed, resolving the disagreement would mean engaging in a power struggle, in other words, starting to look for another job if you don't get satisfaction.

This amounts to leaving the realm of rhetoric and entering that of negotiation. But in this situation, failing in the negotiation carries a great risk for you: losing your job.

2. Highlighting inconsistencies

Here, the objection targets the coherence of our interlocutor's argument. Rather than challenging each point's rigor or effectiveness, we focus on showing that the combined arguments form a contradictory and inconsistent whole. Deconstructing each argument individually can be tedious and counterproductive.

If you spot an inconsistency in your interlocutor's statements, a few sentences are enough to highlight the ambiguity or contradiction. If they fail to respond, their entire argument risks collapse.

This method is effective when used but dangerous if used against us.

Two clarifications: First, distinguish between internal and external objections. Internal objections critique the construction of the argumentative line by highlighting elements that cannot coexist within it. External objections point out inconsistencies between the interlocutor's argument and an external element, such as something they said or did in the past.

Second, the context—deliberative or competitive—is crucial. In a deliberative setting, if the interlocutor fails to address the contradiction we point out, we justifiably refuse to be convinced. Conversely, if our coherence is attacked directly, we must quickly stop the attack to avoid damaging our credibility.

As an audience member witnessing the deconstruction of an argumentative line, maintain your critical thinking by asking: Do the words under attack reveal a condemnable double-speak or a culpable contradiction with past statements and actions? The key question is whether it is legitimate to have changed one's mind over time. Some inconsistencies are clearly damning, while others are justified and acceptable.

Case study:

During a community meeting, your neighbor passionately argues that everyone should reduce their water usage to conserve resources. He explains that he has installed water-saving fixtures, takes shorter showers, and has replaced his lawn with drought-resistant plants. As you think about how much you enjoy taking baths once or twice a week, feeling slightly guilty, he admits that his only exception is his swimming pool. He continues to fill and maintain it throughout the summer, arguing that he works hard and deserves to relax, and we can't deny people some enjoyment. You respond that all these points are understandable. However, with his pool maintenance, he uses more water than most of the neighborhood. You add that don’t challenge his need for relaxation at all. However, you highlight that it seems somewhat incompatible with giving major lectures on water conservation, because the environmental protection requires a change in everyone's habits. You conclude by saying that all natural resources are becoming so precious, so it's no longer possible to completely empty a pool and refill it every year.  Your neighbor mumbles a few incoherent words... and quickly returns to his notes.

Decoding:

You raised an internal objection in a deliberative context, as you simply pointed out a contradiction within your neighbor's speech. Taken by surprise, he was stopped short in his momentum. This instructive example should caution us: the coherence of our position should not suffer the slightest inconsistency.

3. Discrediting the speaker

The third strategy is to directly challenge the speaker's credibility. Instead of refuting their arguments, you discredit them personally, thereby discrediting all their statements at once. However, this approach carries the risk of discrediting yourself. Being accused of a personal attack can lead to losing your own honor and credibility.

There are two approaches: fair and deceptive.

The fair approach involves criticizing the speaker for a fact directly related to their argument. For example, if you're at lunch with friends and you mention you're feeling unwell, a friend suggests some medications. If that friend is a doctor, you're likely to follow their advice. But if the friend is a sports coach, you might listen politely but wait to consult a real doctor later. In both cases, the arguments are the same, but your trust depends on the speaker's expertise. While even a doctor can make mistakes, it makes sense to trust the more qualified person.

The deceptive approach involves attacking the speaker for something unrelated to the discussion. Returning to the previous example, imagine the advising friend is a doctor but has been convicted of tax fraud. Responding with, 'If you're as serious about your medical expertise as you are about your tax dealings, I have my doubts,' doesn't disqualify their medical advice. It only serves to make them seem loathsome and potentially incompetent, even in their profession.

Case study:

During a team meeting at work, your colleague monopolizes the conversation. Let’s call her Sandra. She has become passionate about a new methodology for project management: Agile practices. According to Sandra this is the ultimate solution to all project delays and inefficiencies. But also, and especially, it’s a fantastic career advancement opportunity. She even advises our manager to urgently implement Agile in all our projects: success is guaranteed! For you, it’s a very risky move. You remember reading a few articles on these methodologies. They are still being refined, and nothing guarantees that they will be effective in your specific context, let alone across all projects. You’d prefer, however, to avoid getting into a long technical debate with my colleague. Sandra would likely take the upper hand, overwhelming you with examples and jargon you don't fully understand. So, you just say: “That sounds very promising! But still… You had suggested we adopt a new CRM system just before the previous one was stable. And to switch to a different development framework just before the current one was fully integrated. Are you sure you’re the best person to guide our project management strategies?”. Sandra reacts with a never-ending tirade. But it's too late, the matter is settled: judging by the skeptical looks our manager gives her, you know that it’s not convinced by Sandra’s bold suggestion.

Decoding:

In this competitive debate, we deliberately chose to abandon challenging the credibility of the argument, which would have taken us to our opponent's preferred ground, in favor of a succinct and effective personal attack. This might appear as an admission of weakness. Incapable of winning on the argumentation ground, we chose the path of disqualification. After all, it does not seem unreasonable to doubt the advice of a poor advisor! But let us not forget that an objection aimed at discrediting the speaker is never definitive. Just because our interlocutor has consistently been wrong in the past does not mean she cannot be right today.

So, what should we prioritize? A well-documented argument? Or an argument that discredits the speaker? Once again, there is no right or wrong answer; there is primarily a choice to be made based on what will be more or less convincing to those listening to the discussion.

That all for today ; thanks fo reading !

See you next week. Stay tuned !