What really is an argument? An argument at its very core is a presentation of facts and opinions that are composed to support a common position of one sort or another.

QUESTION 1: What is your idea of an argument and the inherent limits, subtleties, etc. of it?

QUESTION 2:

As far as I understand the concept, an argument in the sense you are talking about is a set of statements (propositions). One of which is the conclusion. The others of which are the premises. And it is claimed by the arguer that the premises so support the conclusion that they make the conclusion worthy of belief. Why would you think that an argument is composed of facts and opinions, or positions?

An argument is a communication aimed at bringing about assent to a proposition solely by appeal to reason. (I don't know how to define 'reason', but I take it to be an innate human faculty, not always used.)

Even on a charitable reading, it appears to be a tautology; and on any reading, it is very muddled (even though I agree with the proposition which appears to be both its conclusion and one of its premises, viz. "if a democracy does not have free speech, it is not a viable democracy"). Maybe it's just me, but I would have to read through the argument several times more to be quite sure of what it is or is not saying!

The notion of the freedom of speech is a fundamental part of our democratic society, since it allows us to voice our concerns without fear of censorship or undue limitation. In one way, a society which has free speech must be a democratic society. Indeed, if a democracy does not have free speech, it is not a viable democracy. But then, terrorists use speech to disseminate hateful propaganda. Only a society which has no restrictions on free speech can be a true and viable democracy. Thus in these ways, if a democracy is to remain viable, we must continue to have free speech.

I formal argument is what kenn described. An argument in the sense that people mean when they say "My argument is that..." is kind of a mish mash usually. Both approaches have their uses, but I do want to see what the person thinks and why they think in when they make an argument.

I would point out that all societies have some restrictions on free speech--they don't allow incitement to violence (as far as I know). Of course these aren't pure democracies but I assume you don't mean that.

So you would say (I am gathering so correct me if I am wrong) that an argument is essentially a statement, such as "My argument is that I do not like water melon" or something to that effect (possibly without a conclusion statement). If so, I think I think that may problematic in the respect that "argument" is being predicated in a multiple way. Almost as though there is a second level predicate incorrectly labeling a statement as an argument in virtue of calling it such. Would it be fair to suppose that an argument is an amalgamation of statements in which have common purpose with all of what has been said in mind?

But in some respects, some arguments do not have to have blunt conclusions since they can have inherent implications in the premises. Open editorials do this many times over, with all the fluff cut out of course.

So within the context of the sample paragraph, would all of the premises be incompatible with your thoughts? One thing that Twirlip had mentioned in her post was that she had a good feeling about the premise, "if a democracy does not have free speech, it is not a viable democracy." If the paragraph is taken at face (namely no other information being considered except for the material in the paragraph), I wonder if what you would have to say would in fact be a sort of be a flip of necessary/sufficient conditions pertaining to the same sentence. In feact, your reasoning may lend criticism to a few other premises, including the last premise which states that "only a society which has no restriction on free speech can be a true and viable democracy."

Also, if you were to say "not all societies have free speech," that problematic within the context of the paragraph because it is an over extension of the content. All societies are not all democracies of which there may be, sub-cat, the case that there is the possibility that there exists one such democratic society which has restricted free speech.

When people are talking about something, the argument is the thing one person said that they expect to convince or explain the issue to the other person. Often not a formal argument.

I think this is a bad way to argue

My thoughts on the sample are that I don't know why they are arguing for it, and disagree that we should have no restrictions on free speech for the reasons I mention. I don't care to talk about premises in a formal manner if the person hasn't made their argument explicitly formal. I like it when people keep it short and I understand what the mean and why they are saying it.

This seems rather vague though. Granted a person can say many things in an argument, regardless of whether or not that argument is actually well formed. Indeed, within the context of certain editorial pieces, you can have an experienced writer compose an entire 500 word article without bluntly stating the thesis/conclusion/etc. There would have to be, I would imagine, a very storm implicative conclusion littered throughout the entire article though.

But I think I am beginning to see your view of an argument, namely that A is trying to convince B on a given subject. Would you say there are any subtleties to the argument though? Would you imply that an argument does not have to be well formed to be an argument to begin with? In a worst case scenario, could you have an argument filled entirely with statements?

Honestly, it really does seem like a bad way to argue (at least superficially). It seems that rather than narrowing obfuscations and logical reasoning on-the-fly, it may just be a lot more simple to say "If A, then B" rather than "If A, then B, If C, then D, either A or C, thus B or D," even though both are really sound inferences and valid.

As far as the sample goes, the thesis statement is that "The notion of the freedom of speech is a fundamental part of our democratic society, since it allows us to voice our concerns without fear of censorship or undue limitation." The premises/counter-premises that follow were to be identified at the discretion of the reader as to whether or not they were compatible with your particular view of an argument. Indeed, an argument does not have to have everything that may make sense and be completely agreeable. In fact, I know for certain that out of the many premises in there, there is only one that actually works right. But then again, with a novel way of approaching an argument, one may argue that one premise, while it may be too vague or obfuscating, may in fact coincide with a valid form. I suppose we could consider the paragraph a working exercise in our own conceptions of argumentation.

It is vague; many people argue vaguely.

Person A: it's not going to rain today
Person B: the weatherman said it was

That's person B's argument. You could formalize it and state all the implied premises, but I don't see why you would in that case.

But see, there's always a person on the other side of the argument. Often they mean more than they say, or are arguing with some other motivation. And that can be enlightening. Why someone believes what they do and why they think it is important can be lost in a simple list of premises.

An argument is an art, not a science.

However, all of this is beside the point. The question is what do you think an argument is and based off of those conceptions, could you apply it to the sample argument.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 03:16 PM ----------

I tend to go into arguments believing I am wrong, as only a good argument will hold this true, a bad argument will be that which proves they and I are wrong in our wrongs.
Accepting you are wrong and having someone prove to them selves and you this is a correct assumption is easier than thinking you are right and never being able to be proved anything.
It is harder for someone to prove you are right at being wrong that someone proving you wrong at being right.

A sample argument could very well be the most famous of all arguments, Aristotle's.

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.

Therefore, 3, Socrates is mortal.

The argument above has all of the elements of an argument. There is a conclusion marked by the illiative (or conclusion indicator, "therefore") and there are the premises that are claimed to support the conclusion. What more would you want?

QUESTION 1: What is your idea of an argument and the inherent limits, subtleties, etc. of it?

QUESTION 2:

An argument is an art, not a science.

Exactly! However, there could be a number of novel ways in which the subject of our conceptions of arguments could be approached. There are premises and a conclusion, sure, but what about a larger compounded argument such as the sample paragraph using nonsense obfuscation to cloud the intent of the thesis?

Suppose;

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Some men are zombies
4. All zombies are dead

Universally predicated, Socrates is a man but existentially predicated, the possibility exists that some men are zombies. Can Socrates be considered part of the this existential predication? Probably. Some is not all but all could include some. So would this line of premises lend a clear conclusion that Socrates is mortal? Yes. Because even zombies and Socrates were mortal at some point before they died and possibly rose from the dead to feast on the flesh of the living in a string of mildly successful straight to dvd releases of hit horror/comedy films. Was all of that necessary? No. BAM! If the glove does not fit, you must acquit. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. RUMSFELD! (LOL! what???)

A person generally has some agenda behind an argument. We aren't computers. Emotional biases are involved whether stated or not. An ounce of understanding the emotions involved is worth a pound of pure logic.

I think an effective argument achieves some goal. Fundamentally, these statements are linking freedom of speech to the life of democracy along with what looks like support of terrorist tactics. (Who said 'I'd give the Devil the benefit of the law for my own safety's sake'? ... Thomas More?)

Stating that something is true isn't enough to persuade someone who doesn't believe it. I think I'd have to give examples of how democracy is undermined when that right is not enforced by the government.

Sorry, what is your point, exactly? Or even, inexactly? And what does "universally predicated" and, "existentially predicated" mean? Some men are zombies is, as far as we know, false. Let us agree on that. If some men were zombies, would Socrates be included in the class of zombies? The sentence give us no such information. So the answer is, it is undetermined, which is also an answer. At least the only answer available. Again, what is your point? If you are attempting to explain the notion of argument, and to make the notion clear, you are doing exactly the opposite, and appear to be intentionally making it confusing. So, I ask again. What is your point?

Which means, what? That it cannot be determined whether or not an argument is a correct argument or not? It sounds nice to say that kind of thing, but what does it mean?

I suppose superficially though, the argument you posted in your post #13 (the Aristotelian argument) is an argument in a very generous sense (cannot easily be reverse engineered to propositional form), but in substantial content, it is fairly different, especially for the aforesaid reasons.

"