Recently, one of the blogs I follow wrote about “compelling
arguments”. The gist of the post was that one person or party would make an
argument using facts, ration, and logic, and the opposing person or party would
just say “No” and not present any meaningful opposition. At the end he stated,
“You know, I really begin to wonder exactly what a ‘compelling argument’ really
looks like.” I sarcastically left the comment that we see “compelling
arguments” all the time, in the form of emotionally driven arguments. He then
proceeded to contradict me (just go read the post and you’ll get it).
Originally I thought his response was serious, and so it got
me thinking. How do you define a compelling argument? From one point of view, a
compelling argument would appear one way, and from the opposite point of view,
it would appear a different way. From the point of view of a person wanting an
argument (as opposed to just automatic gainsaying), the most compelling
argument would be factual, logical, reasonable, and consistent. As long as both
sides are using reason and truth to debate, they should both have compelling
arguments. On the other hand, if you view the argument from the result, rather
than the content, then a compelling argument is merely the argument that causes
change. The former is harder to see and is not often thought of because when we
think of “compelling” we often think of the outcome, not the substance. The
latter may not be based on logic, reason, or truth, but because it was the more
emotional, it compelled people to side with it. Both lead to a change, ideally,
but one looks at the content, and one looks at the result.
