Caleb’s Concepts: How to Win a Political Discourse


Caleb Garbuio, Columnist

The 2020 Democratic primaries are in full swing, and candidates need supporters. Thus, Democratic voters are obligated to research candidates and vote for the best one.
However, the Democratic primaries require constituents to research core issues and elect the candidates who address them. These voters must convince their friends and family to vote for the right candidate because if the wrong candidate is elected, Donald Trump will get reelected.
There are two types of arguments: inductive arguments and deductive arguments. Inductive arguments generalize what is seen and felt, while deductive arguments discover lesser known truths from generally accepted information.
For example, during the Nevada Democratic Debate, Michael Bloomberg told Bernie Sanders a communist will never win the presidency. This is an inductive argument, because Bloomberg feels that Sanders is a communist and a communist cannot become president.
Should anyone encounter someone who does not like Sanders on these grounds, convincing this person requires disproving Sanders being a communist.
When discussing subjective interpretations to inductive arguments, people mistakenly attack the conclusion instead of the induction. Thus, attacking Bloomberg’s conclusion is folly because a communist cannot win the presidency. However, his argument is discredited should Sanders prove that he isn’t a communist.
It is easier to discredit inductive arguments because deductive arguments use generally accepted information to form conclusions. Thus, should deductive premises hold true, the conclusion logically follows.
For example, Marxist scholars contend that humans are naturally collective. Thus, if Person A is a human, then Person A is collective. When dealing with deductive arguments, always attack the generally accepted information. Thus, to defeat Marxist arguments, one must prove humans are individualistic, not collective.
While every voter has an opinion, not all are correct. Given enough time, truth will prevail. People who are exposed to the truth must share it. Thus, the failure to explain truth properly is the fault of the person with the information.
A convincing presentation of truthful information requires knowledge pertaining to both sides of an issue. It is easy to convince an agreeing audience. However, it is impossible to convince people who disagree with you without sufficient knowledge about how others look at issues.