How to write a counter argument - the scientific principle one can follow

Every argument has a counter argument to it.

However, the science behind writing a counter argument goes very far.

It is not as simple as "I need to explain how that argument is incorrect".

Each argument has premise and conclusion.

So attacking premises or conclusion is the usual way, but lets explore different options when writing a counter-argument.

The different ways of writing counter-argument are:

1. Challenge assumptions by asking for proof.

Many arguments have assumptions as their premises.

Therefore, pointing out that premises are assumptions, or pointing out that they are unproved, greatly diminishes the strength of an argument.

Also, one must know that sometimes premises are true, but conclusion doesnt follow.

Conclusion drawn from facts can still be an assumption, if it is not logical that such conclusion follows from facts.

It is sometimes possible that even if opponent presents evidence for premises, there could be more evidence against those premises than there is for them.

So by presenting evidence which disproves a premise, the argument collapses.

This can be done by presenting studies, facts, statistics or examples which disprove a premise.

Its not always necessary to disprove premises.

It can be enough to present a different option which has more or equal evidence to support it.

For example, presenting a different premise or different conclusion from same premises.

If one of the premises is:

"If it rains today, I wont go outside."

You can challenge it by saying that there are cases when you go outside when it rains.

You can also say that its possible to go outside when it rains.

This places doubt on the premise.

Outweigh is a form of indirect negation.

You basically concede that argument is true, but that it is outweighed by your arguments.

This usually works better if there is a comparison done.

Even if premise is conceded to be true, and if conclusion is also conceded to be true, it could still mean that the argument doesnt prove the topic enough.

This happens when argument only covers one part of the topic, or doesnt cover all cases.

Such arguments are incomplete and depend on hidden assumptions to be accepted as true.

By pointing out how argument doesnt cover the case it is supposed to cover to prove the topic, and by pointing out that there are indeed such cases which are not covered by the argument, it diminishes the argument's strength.

This is usually considered as trolling, but every argument depends upon some assumption being true or false.

For example,

"I see a building" is a premise which depends upon an assumption that what you see is what is real and that you are not just insane or hallucinating or that your brain isnt deceiving you.

This is considered as trolling tactic, since it moves the debate to what cannot be proven or disproven.

But since every argument becomes challenged when it meets these limitations, this is still a form of counter-argument.

Argument could be true and everything, but still it could be not relevant to the topic.

It sometimes happens that people try to change the definition argument uses, and use definition which isnt commonly accepted.

It is also possible that people misrepresent the meaning of the definition they use.

If opponent's one claim contradicts with another, he will logically have to concede that one of the claims is false.

If opponent uses logical fallacies, his argument becomes invalid if you point out which logical fallacy is he using.

Some arguments dont need to be attacked directly, but they have whats usually described as "undesirable outcomes or costs".

Basically, by pointing out that if given argument is true, then things which disprove the topic also must be true.

This is similar to reframing an argument, where you concede that argument is true, but that it works for your case or against your opponent's case.

By limiting your opponent to an options which he must defend to defend his argument, it places doubt on if said argument is true.

surprise surprise

Thank you Professor B.K.