I used to enjoy watching political debates. Candidates discussed controversial issues, slung stinging one-liners, and created quite the spectacle. However, in recent years my interest in such forums has fallen off. I began getting frustrated with how the so-called "debates" never went anywhere as far as discussing the actual topics.
The political arena isn't the only place I have witnessed this and I'm sure that you would probably agree. Whether it is an argument over the budget deficit on capitol hill or the best pie at Aunt Mary's family reunion, people will fight until they are blue in the face but make no progress in proving why they are right. The fatal error is the lack of depth.
A fully-rounded, effective argument has three major aspects;
1. Claim: This is the easy part. Anyone, and i mean ANYONE, can make a claim. A claim is just a statement asserting that something is true... not that it actually is. People claim Elvis is still alive, the moon landing was faked, and that LeBron is the best basketball player in the world (c'mon we all know its Steph). This doesn't mean that all claims aren't true, even the best arguments start with a claim. It is just that a claim, in and of itself, is simply the beginning.
2. Warrant: Really this is just a fancy word for "support" or "evidence." Every assertion must be backed up with something that shows why it is true. Someone arguing Steph Curry is the best basketball player in the world might point to his 3-point shooting and his recent MVP awards as their "warrant." All good arguments need evidence to help convince others that their point is valid. The problem is too many people stop with warrants. Let's take a look at some examples.
Example 1
We can't ban assault rifles [claim] because that would infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights [warrant]!***
The problem here is there is no impact. Why do we care about 2nd Amendment rights? The impact may be implied (undermining the constitution shows a lack of respect for my fundamental rights) but if people disagree with you, you cannot assume they understand what you are leaving unsaid.
Example 2
We should nationalize healthcare [claim] because so many people can't afford health insurance [warrant].
Again, no impact. It could follow logically that lack of health insurance may lead to people not receiving proper care and being physically harmed because of it, but that needs to be fleshed out.
3. Impact: This is the "so what" part of the argument. You must demonstrate why people need to care. Showing the importance of your point is a vital aspect of convincing others. This can be done through quantity, quality, or the morality of the impact.
With that in mind, here is a proper argument;
Example 3
The government shouldn't pay for college tuition [claim] because doing so would cause more people to go to college [warrant] which would overcrowd classrooms and degrade the value of the education offered.
So next time you are debating privatizing the TSA or why vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream, be sure to utilize the three aspects of successful argumentation. And that is why EXCELLENCE makes an IMPACT!
***Views on gun control, healthcare, college tuition, and especially the best basketball player are not necessarily held by the author. They are explicitly used only for the sake of example.