Article adapted from episode content.

Friends, colleagues, fellow thinkers, it is a distinct pleasure to address you today on a matter of paramount importance in the realm of intellectual discourse, particularly when engaging with those who hold differing perspectives. The ability to articulate one’s own viewpoint with clarity and precision is undoubtedly crucial. However, equally vital, if not more so, is the skill of ensuring that those who stand in opposition to your position are compelled to articulate their own arguments with the same rigor. Today, I want to impress upon you the necessity of making your critics state their case clearly.

In the marketplace of ideas, where various viewpoints compete for acceptance, it is essential to recognize the distinction between mere assertions and well-reasoned arguments. Far too often, in discussions and debates, particularly on contentious issues, we encounter individuals who present a series of unsubstantiated claims, hoping that the sheer volume or emotional weight of their pronouncements will suffice as a persuasive case. This approach, akin to throwing mud at a wall and hoping something sticks, serves only to obfuscate the central issues and hinder any possibility of meaningful dialogue or intellectual progress.

As we at the case for life program frequently emphasize, arguments matter; mere assertions do not. An assertion is simply a statement of belief or opinion, often delivered with conviction but lacking the necessary supporting evidence or logical structure. For example, in discussions surrounding the moral status of the unborn, one might hear the assertion, “A fetus is not a person.” While this statement expresses a viewpoint, it offers no justification for that viewpoint. It presents no reasons why a fetus should not be considered a person, nor does it engage with the counterarguments that may exist.

In stark contrast, a well-formed argument presents a series of premises that logically lead to a particular conclusion. A classic example, and one that we often employ in pro-life apologetics, is the syllogism:

• Premise one: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
• Premise two: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
• Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

This formal structure allows for a clear examination of the underlying assumptions and the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. If an opponent disagrees with the conclusion, they must then engage with one or both of the premises. Do they believe it is not always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being? Or do they contest the claim that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being? By stating the argument formally, we create a framework for focused and productive discussion.

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find that individuals who oppose a particular view are reluctant to articulate their position in such a clear and structured manner. Instead, they may resort to a variety of tactics designed to deflect scrutiny and avoid substantive engagement. These tactics can include:

• Talking over opponents: Interrupting and preventing a coherent presentation of the opposing viewpoint.
• Bringing up a multitude of unrelated issues: Shifting the focus away from the core argument and introducing a barrage of tangential points. This “whataboutism out the wazoo” makes it nearly impossible to address any single issue in depth.
• Making emotional appeals rather than logical arguments: Relying on sentiment or outrage to persuade, rather than presenting reasoned justifications.
• Simply asserting claims without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning: Stating beliefs as if they are self-evident truths that require no defense.

Consider the example of the individual at the event with Llaya Rose who asserted that “until you have self-awareness, you do not have a right to life”. While this is a clear statement, it is merely an assertion. No argument was provided to explain why self-awareness should be the criterion for the right to life, how much self-awareness is necessary, or why other potential criteria should be disregarded. In such situations, it is crucial to push back and ask, “Could you reformulate that as an argument? Could you make your case for why self-awareness matters?”.

Often, your critics may lack the skill or the inclination to formulate a formal argument on their own. In such cases, you may need to guide them by suggesting a possible structure. For instance, in response to the assertion about self-awareness, one could say, “So, if I understand you correctly, your argument is something like this: Premise one, to have a right to life, you must be self-aware. Premise two, embryos and early fetuses are not self-aware. Conclusion: Therefore, embryos and early fetuses do not have a right to life”. By helping them articulate their position in this way, you transform a vague assertion into a testable argument.

Once an argument is formally stated, you can then begin to analyze its components. You can examine the validity of the argument – does the conclusion logically follow from the premises? – and the soundness of the argument – are the premises themselves true?. In the example of self-awareness, the first question to ask is, “Why is self-awareness value-giving? In other words, why is it that that thing that gives me a right to life, and not something else?”. Make your critic defend that claim. They cannot simply assert it; they must provide a reasoned justification.

By pressing for a defense of the premises, you can often expose weaknesses in their reasoning. For instance, if self-awareness is the sole criterion for the right to life, what implications does this have for individuals who are temporarily unconscious due to sleep, anesthesia, or a reversible coma?. Are they also deprived of their right to life during these periods? Someone might attempt to differentiate by arguing that an embryo or fetus never possessed self-awareness, whereas someone in a coma once did. This introduces a new potential premise – that having been self-aware in the past confers a right to life. However, this premise can also be challenged through thought experiments, such as the scenario of twins where one has momentary self-awareness at birth and then enters a prolonged coma alongside the other twin who never experienced self-awareness. Does this arbitrary difference justify granting a right to life to one but not the other? Such explorations highlight the inconsistencies and problematic implications that can arise from seemingly simple assertions when they are subjected to the rigor of logical analysis.

Furthermore, it is crucial to insist that your critics clarify what they mean by the terms they use. In the self-awareness example, what precisely does “self-awareness” entail?. Does it mean actual, present self-awareness, which would exclude those who are sleeping? Does it refer to the immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness, which might exclude those under anesthesia? Or does it denote a natural capacity for self-awareness, inherent to our being as human beings, which would include embryos and fetuses? By forcing a definition of terms, you can uncover ambiguities and expose the full implications of their claims.

The insistence on formal argumentation serves not only to clarify the critic’s position but also to keep the discussion focused. When individuals are allowed to jump from one assertion to another, introducing a litany of concerns and objections without any logical connection, the conversation becomes disjointed and unproductive. By saying, “Hey, can I take that first point you made… Could you state that for me as a formal argument so that we can discuss it and see where that leads us?”, you gently but firmly guide the discussion back to a single, definable issue. You can then address that argument thoroughly before moving on to another point, if necessary. This structured approach is far more likely to yield meaningful insights and potentially bridge the gap between differing viewpoints.

It is also important to understand why some individuals may resist articulating their case in a formal, logical manner and why they might become agitated when pressed to do so. As Carl Trueman discusses in his insightful work, “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self,” contemporary secular culture is increasingly characterized by what he terms expressive individualism. In this worldview, individuals define their very identity by their choices and desires. What one feels or wants becomes inextricably linked to who one is.

Consequently, when their beliefs or desires are challenged, particularly on sensitive issues like abortion, sexuality, or gender, individuals operating within this framework often perceive such challenges not as an intellectual disagreement but as a personal attack on their very identity. If someone believes that the freedom to have an abortion is a fundamental aspect of their autonomy and self-determination, then questioning the morality of abortion can be experienced as a direct assault on their sense of self. This explains why discussions on these topics can quickly become emotional and why individuals may react with anger or accusations of judgment. As one woman famously retorted to Llaya Rose, “How dare you judge me? How dare you tell me what I get to do with my own child?”. Notice the personal nature of the objection, even containing an unintentional concession regarding the status of the unborn.

In contrast, those grounded in a more objective framework, such as a Christian worldview, are better equipped to separate their arguments from their personal identity. For a Christian, identity is rooted in Christ and in God’s pronouncements, not solely in individual desires or choices. Therefore, when their arguments are challenged, they can engage with the critique on its merits without feeling that their core being is under attack. They can evaluate the validity and soundness of the arguments presented, regardless of who is making them. As we understand, arguments stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the person advancing them. The validity of “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal” remains true whether uttered by a philosopher or a tyrant.

Therefore, as you navigate the often-turbulent waters of intellectual disagreement, remember the power of a simple yet profound strategy: make your critics state their case clearly. Do not allow them to hide behind a smokescreen of assertions, emotional appeals, or shifting topics. Insist that they articulate their arguments in a formal and structured manner, preferably as a syllogism. Prompt them to define their terms and to defend their underlying premises. By doing so, you foster an environment conducive to rational discourse, where ideas can be rigorously examined, and genuine understanding can be pursued. While you may not always achieve agreement, you will undoubtedly elevate the level of the conversation and gain a clearer understanding of the basis for your critics’ beliefs. And ultimately, in the pursuit of truth, clarity is our greatest ally.