An argument, according to the dictionary I have sitting here, is:
The Highroads Dictionary, 1969, Nelson.
This is a sufficiently broad enough definition that I am happy.
Now the definition for logic, via the same source is:
Once again, a very broad definition, but will suffice.
Now often when we construct an argument, we have (hopefully) a list of points that we wish to expound. To express these points clearly, we tend to STRUCTURE our arguments so that one point will follow another in a fashion that formulates a complete argument.
Now I’ve often thought that the best way to do this is to have your points (arguments) lined up in a logical order so that:
POINT A --> directly leads on to --> POINT B --> directly leads on to… etc.
It follows then, that I would think the best way to make an argument is to ensure that your argument is LOGICAL.
Now I know maybe that goes without saying, but let’s take a moment to consider something. If logic is the best tool to use in an argument, doesn’t it make sense to say that logicians are the most skilled at debating? Surely someone who studies the very nature of logic would also produce the most logical arguments, and thus the BEST argument?
But then consider this. A logical argument must be well-thought out (perhaps in advance of the debate) to ensure that a decisive position (in the argument) is reached. You would need to structure the points in logical order so that it all made sense. However, a more lateral type of argument can make greater “leaps” in the structure of the points given - it does not have to follow the sequential route that logic must take. Perhaps someone skilled in this type of debating style, who makes his/her points more fluid and flexible can stretch an illogical line of thinking - rendering the use of logic by the logician useless.
I realise that arguments are judged on quality and merit, so there isn’t a “winner” or “loser” in numerical terms. So if we have to, we can insert this principle into the above. So it is these question(s) I wish to debate:
-
Let us suppose that we are determining which argument is of a higher quality, or has more merit, A or B. Is logic the most powerful weapon in a debaters aresenal? If so, why?
-
If the answer to 1) is NO, then what is more powerful (in constructing an argument) than logic, and why?
-
If the answer to 1) is YES, then by deduction, is a logician the most skilled at formulating an argument?
Please discuss.