Feature

LOGIC can be used to prove the most utterly ridiculous hypothesis beyond any shred of doubt. When you find yourself on a debating stage, playing with your opponents' logic can be a clever way to prove your own arguments. This is especially useful when you have little information at your disposal about the topic you are debating on, or when your opposition has come up with a seemingly irrefutable argument.

Let me explain how to use your opposition's argument for your own benefit by giving the example of a US presidential debate between the two Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. One of the points in favor of Clinton in her bid to become president is her relatively greater political experience than Obama, and she did not fail to mention this during her speech. But Obama cleverly turned her experience into her liability during his speech, emphasizing that America needs new leadership and pointing out that Clinton voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. This is how a debater turns the table using the very arguments presented by his opposition to prove his own points.

You can also use your opponent's answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions. Suppose your opponent is reeling off fact after fact in order to establish that media is a tool for exploitation and has been used to gain political motives. You can simply ask your opponent the sources of his information. With his answer, you can go on to prove that it is through media that people get to know about the attempted abuses that are being carried out by some authorities. Therefore, media is actually a safeguard against manipulation and not a tool. This is how you may try to draw out responses from your unsuspecting opponent that will actually help to prove your own case.

Another way to gain logical ground is to carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits by exaggerating it. For instance, in the Assumption Worlds 2008 held in Thailand, a team from Western Australia was debating for the motion 'This House would deny scarce medical resources to terminally ill patients.' And the first speaker from this team categorically stated that the state-owned hospitals should deny all forms of treatment to people suffering from incurable diseases. He then resorted to lengthy rhetoric as to why this will improve quality and availability of scarce medical services in the public sector. His main focus was on the comparative capabilities of the public and the private sector. However, his entire case was brought down when his opponent pointed out that by arguing terminal patients should be denied 'all forms of treatment' he is actually saying that even his grandmother, who may be suffering from a terminal disease like Alzheimer's disease, should be denied an appointment with the dentist. His opponent stretched his statement to a ridiculous extent to make it appear ludicrous.

Another way to overcome good arguments is to seek out the fallacious assumptions behind a statement made by your opponent instead of accepting it at its face value. For example in the same Worlds, a team from Ireland was speaking for the proposition, “The Government should not rescue failing private companies.” They argued that, in an open-market economy it is not the duty of the government to rescue a flailing private company that has not been able to keep up with the competition. This statement is indeed very true. However, the erroneous assumption behind this statement is that private companies fail only due to market forces, and thus the government should not interfere. Therefore, you have to prove that companies and corporations that play a huge role in boosting up a country's economy may also face possibilities of bankruptcy due to circumstances like war, natural disasters which are completely out of their control. So, the government sometimes has to intervene for the sake of maintaining healthy competition between private companies in an open-market economy. Therefore, critical analysis of all the statements made by your opponent is necessary, no matter how theoretically sound they might appear to be.

Sometimes a single fact can overturn an excellent argument. For example- your opponent might be able to bring forth many convincing arguments to prove why Iran should not be allowed to pursue the Nuclear Enrichment Program. However, you may argue that Iran should be allowed to pursue Thorium-based Nuclear Program, as it does not entail the possibility of nuclear proliferation and is just as efficient as the traditional uranium-based nuclear technology. The revelation of this fact may well cause your opponent to grope desperately for counter-arguments.

There are many other ways by which you can trap your opponent in a logical dilemma, which you shall find in this magazine in the following weeks. Just remember that logic and reasoning can be twisted to fit any argument in the world.