The Hierarchy of Disagreement. Learn it. Use it. Live it.

During the past year or so, upon returning from the hallowed halls of the Judicial System to the Wild West of Otakudom, I have been subjected to many arguments from people who think calling someone “GAY” is equivalent to scoring some sort of metaphysical point. Coming from a line of work where precision of argument is of the utmost importance, I would like to disabuse these people of their delusions.

Look at the scary Maslow-like diagram above. Don’t worry, it won’t bite. It is the Hierarchy of Arguments by Paul Graham. It is arranged from the least valid objections at the bottom to the most valid ones on top. The bottom 4 tiers contribute very little to the actual discourse. The top 3 are better, but don’t guarantee that a refutation is valid, they simply increase the probability that a counter-argument is sound.

Since the whole thing is a bit abstract at this point, let me illustrate using real-world examples.

1. Name-Calling. We all know what this is like. We don’t need to spend too much time on this one. Example: You’re a dirty old man pedophile fag slut. *highfives gang*

2. Ad Hominem. This appears to be another favorite. This is a step up from Name-Calling because the accusation may be relevant, but doesn’t actually address the argument directly. Example: Of course he would side with her. He’s a White Knight. Another example: What does he know, he bought his costume instead of making it himself.

A very popular response to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. And just about as valid as they are.

3. Responding to Tone. Finally we see a response to the actual debate, but not to the content. After all, it’s better to be flippant and right than respectful and wrong. Example: You might be right, but you shouldn’t be so arrogant about it. (Btw, I get this a lot for some reason. )

4. Contradiction. This is the lowest form of actual response to argument, where you state the opposite case without little or no supporting evidence, often combined with Responding to Tone statements. Example: I can’t believe you’re so snarky about cosplayers who don’t make their own costumes. Cosplayers who don’t make their own costumes are cosplayers too.

With the next 3 tiers we finally get arguments that address the actual issues.

5. Counterargument. This is the first form of convincing disagreement. This is contradiction plus evidence. Unfortunately sometimes counterarguments aim at a different point than the original argument, either unintentionally or through intellectual dishonesty. It’s common for two people to fire off counterarguments at each other when they actually agree on the central point, or for one person to use counterargument to perpetuate a disagreement that is already resolved. Example: You make a good point about her popularity as a community figure, but she’s a terrible role model for the young because she’s glorifying the objectification of the female form.

6. Refutation. This is the most convincing form of argument, where you find the mistake in the argument and then, often using quotes, directly show why the original speaker is mistaken. Example: You said that the Endless Eight episodes were filler episodes by KyoAni done as an attempt to save money for the movie. But if that was the case, they would have simply reused cels from previous episodes, and used the same recorded dialogue, instead of freshly animating and dubbing each new episode.

7. Refuting the Central Point. The strength of a refutation depends on which point you refute. Many people prefer to refute peripheral arguments of their opponent instead of honing in on the very thesis of their argument, the very point he or she is trying to make, and then demolishing it with evidence and quotation. Example: You explicitly said at a public forum that “people who wear costumes for pay are not cosplayers, but models,” speaking on behalf of real cosplayers. But didn’t you also receive remuneration for wearing your very finely self-crafted costume that one time? Your status as a cosplayer is beyond doubt, of course, but doesn’t that leave your original statement in shambles?

Is that much clearer now, children? However, like I said above, just because your argument is higher up on the pyramid is no guarantee that that argument is correct. We do not deal in certainties. What it does do, however, is indicate a higher probability that the argument is valid.

So feel free to ignore arguments from the bottom 4 from now on, okay?

Hey, here’s something fun you can all try: Let’s look at debates involving our favorite fandom, and try to find out from which tier each speaker is coming from. It’ll shed a lot of light on how they think. So… where should we begin? Any suggestions?

[The above image is from CreateDebate, an awesome site you should check out if you're at all interested in being a more effective debater. Read the original essay by Paul Graham here.]

1 person likes this post.

Unlike