CASTLE-ING, A deep dive into better argumentation

A common analogy used in the context of arguments is that of comparing it to a castle.

The basic components of a debate more or less the same in number to that of the basic components of a castle. In this blog we shall how understanding this analogy is key to dismantling an oppositions argument.

We all know how a castle looks like right? No? Well here is a photo I painstakingly drew for reference. I would also like to place on record that this is precisely how castles around the world look. It is a perfect rendition.

An argument essentially has 4 parts to it. They are as follows:

1. Presupposition

2. Assumption

3. Analysis

4. Examples

Let’s understand these with the help of a debate motion, “This house would legalize corporal punishment”.

· Like Bradley H. Dowden says Presupposition of a statement are background assumptions. The presuppositions are other, unsaid, relevant statements that would normally be taken for granted if you believed or asserted the statement.

In the corporal punishment debate, the presupposition would be that, discipline is good. Both teams generally take this for granted while debating.

· An assumption is an unjustified claim.

The assumption for the proposition would be that fear is good deterrent.

· The Analysis is what justifies your assumption and gives reason to your claims.
In this case, the above assumption can justified with the following analysis:
Corporal punishment instils fear in students though pain. This fear of going through pain again will prevent students from doing the deed that got them into trouble the first time, thereby ensuring discipline.

· Your example will be the real life instance you provide to add more weight to your argument.
According to one report by the UK Home Office, after 1997 when corporal punishment was outlawed, crime increased by 67%

Since presupposition is usually agreed upon by both parties we won’t bother dismantling it in a debate generally.

When you are attacking a castle, attacking the base of the castle is usually the most effective strategy. If the base falls, the entire castle crumbles along with it.

The second most effective strategy is to attack the castle brick by brick. It is not as effective as dismantling the base, but it is still more effective than attacking the turrets at the top of the castle.

With that in mind, let us understand that the assumption is like the base. You dismantle the assumption of the opposition you have effectively taken down their entire argument. Their analyses are like the bricks, and the examples are like the turrets. Attacking the example will only discredit that example, the arguments still stand.

(REFER TO CASTLE PICTURE ABOVE FOR REFERENCE)

Good Luck!