Testing Your Own Arguments Before You Use Them

Question 1: Would Someone New to This Issue Understand My Reasoning?This is harder than it sounds. You’re familiar with the issue. You’ve read about it, thought about it, discussed it. Certain steps in your reasoning feel obvious to you because you’ve made those connections before.The person you’re talking to might not have that background. Steps that seem obvious to you might be complete leaps to them.How to test this:Imagine explaining your argument to someone intelligent but unfamiliar with the topic. Better yet, actually explain it to someone who fits that description. Where do they get confused? Where do they ask “how did you get from X to Y?” Those are the gaps in your reasoning.Example of gaps you might miss:Your argument: “We should have a wealth tax because the system isn’t fair and rich people need to pay their share.”The gap: You’ve assumed your listener knows what a wealth tax is, why the current system is unfair, and what “their share” means. To someone unfamiliar with tax policy, this argument has massive unexplained jumps.Better version that fills gaps: “We mainly tax income, but not accumulated wealth sitting in assets. A wealth tax would charge a percentage on assets above, say, £10 million. Someone with £50 million in property and shares would contribute more than they do now, whilst ordinary homeowners wouldn’t be affected.”You’ve explained what a wealth tax is, how it differs from current taxation, and roughly how it would work. Someone new to the topic can follow your reasoning.Common gaps people leave:* Technical terms used without explanation* Causal connections that seem obvious to you but aren’t (”therefore” or “so” connecting two things without explaining the connection)* Background knowledge you have but others might not* Steps in logic you’ve internalized but haven’t articulatedQuestion 2: Am I Relying on Credible, Relevant Sources?Source credibility matters enormously, but it’s easy to fool yourself here. You tend to find sources that already agree with you more credible than sources that disagree. This is human nature. You need to actively check yourself.Two problems to watch for:Problem one: Echo chamber sourcing. You’re only citing sources that agree with your position. Think tanks that support your political perspective. Media outlets that lean your way. Experts who share your conclusions.This doesn’t mean your sources are wrong. But it means you haven’t tested your position against the strongest counterarguments. You’ve looked for ammunition, not understanding.How to test for this: Look at your sources. Do they all lean the same political direction? Are they all making similar arguments? Have you sought out sources that disagree with you and engaged with their strongest points?If you’re arguing for stricter immigration controls, have you read serious arguments from people who favour more open immigration? If you’re arguing for rent controls, have you read the economists who think they’re counterproductive? If you’re arguing against Brexit, have you engaged with the strongest arguments for why leaving might benefit Britain?The fix: Deliberately seek out serious sources that disagree with you. Not straw man versions or the weakest opponents. The strongest, most credible people who reach different conclusions. Understand their arguments. Then either address them or adjust your position.Problem two: Irrelevant credentials. You’re citing someone’s opinion on topic X based on their expertise in topic Y.A Nobel Prize-winning physicist’s opinion on economic policy carries no more weight than any other intelligent person’s opinion. A successful businessperson’s views on education reform aren’t automatically credible just because they’re successful in business. A doctor’s opinion on climate science isn’t expert opinion unless they’ve studied climate science.How to test for this: For each source you’re citing, ask: “What makes this person or organization qualified to speak on this specific topic?” If the answer is their general intelligence, their fame, or their success in a different field, they’re not a credible source for this argument.The fix: Use sources with relevant expertise for each specific claim. If you’re making claims about education outcomes, cite education researchers. If you’re making claims about economic effects, cite economists who study that specific area. If you’re making claims about climate science, cite climate scientists.Question 3: Are My Assumptions Reasonable and Clearly Stated?Your argument rests on assumptions. These are the things you’re taking as given, the foundational beliefs that support your reasoning. Assumptions aren’t bad, every argument has them, but hidden assumptions are dangerous because they prevent real engagement with your argument.Why this matters:Often, disagreements that seem to be about facts or policies are actually about different underlying assumptions. If you make those assumptions explicit, you can have an honest conversation about whether they’re reasonable. If you hide them, you and the other person argue past each other forever.Example:Your argument: “We should lower taxes on businesses to encourage investment and growth.”Hidden assumptions:* Businesses will invest extra money rather than distributing it to shareholders* Economic growth from business investment will benefit workers, not just owners* Growth is more important than current public service provision* Lower business taxes actually affect investment decisions significantly* The benefits of growth will outweigh the lost tax revenueIf someone disagrees with any of these assumptions, they’ll disagree with your conclusion even if they accept your facts. But if you haven’t stated the assumptions, you’ll just argue about whether lower business taxes “work” without ever identifying where you actually disagree.How to test for hidden assumptions:Look at your argument and ask: “What would need to be true for this reasoning to work?” List those things. Those are your assumptions.Then ask: “Would someone who disagrees with my conclusion likely accept these assumptions?” If the answer is no, you’ve found where the real disagreement lies.The fix: State your major assumptions explicitly. “I’m assuming that X is true, if you don’t agree we can talk about that too”This doesn’t weaken your argument. It strengthens it by making clear what you’re actually claiming and what someone would need to challenge to disagree with you.Question 4: Have I Addressed the Strongest Objections Fairly?This is where most people’s arguments fall apart. It’s easy to address weak objections. It’s tempting to address only weak objections. But this makes your argument weak.The strawman trap:You think about objections to your position. You naturally think of the weakest, stupidest objections first because those are easiest to dismiss. You address those. You feel like you’ve dealt with counterarguments.But you’ve actually made your argument weaker because anyone familiar with the issue knows you’ve ignored the serious objections.Example:Your argument: “We should build more cycle lanes to reduce car dependence.”Weak objection you address: “Some people say cyclists don’t follow the rules of the road, so we shouldn’t accommodate them.”Your response: “That’s irrelevant to whether cycle infrastructure reduces car use. Rule-breaking happens with all transport modes.”You’ve addressed an objection. But it was a weak objection. The strong objections are:* Cost effectiveness compared to other transport investments* Displacement of car parking or road space and effects on local businessesIf you address the weak objection and ignore the strong ones, anyone who knows about transport policy will see you’re avoiding the hard questions.How to test for this:Ask yourself: “What would the most informed, reasonable person who disagrees with me say?” Not the angriest or stupidest. The most thoughtful.Better yet, read what thoughtful people who disagree actually say. What are their strongest arguments?Then address those arguments specifically. Show you understand them. Show why you still reach your conclusion despite those concerns, or show how your proposal addresses them.The fix: Seek out the best arguments against your position. Address those. If you can’t address them well, maybe your position needs adjusting.Question 5: Does My Argument Invite Engagement or Shut Down Discussion?This is about tone and framing. Some arguments, even when logically sound, are structured in ways that make discussion impossible.Signals that shut down discussion:* Absolute language: “This is the only solution.” “Anyone who disagrees is wrong.” “The evidence is completely clear.”* Character judgments: “People who oppose this don’t care about X.” “This position is morally bankrupt.”* Dismissive framing: “That’s been thoroughly debunked.” “Only idiots think X.”* No acknowledgment of trade-offs: Your proposal has only benefits, no costs.These framings make discussion impossible because they leave no space for legitimate disagreement. They force the other person to either agree completely or fight you.Signals that invite engagement:* Tentative language: “I think this approach would work better because...” “From what I understand...” “This seems like the best option given what we know...”* Acknowledgment of complexity: “There are trade-offs here.” “I see why people worry about X.” “This isn’t perfect but...”* Specific claims: “This policy would reduce emissions by approximately X based on evidence from Y” rather than “This will save the planet.”* Questions: “What would you need to see to support this?” “Which of these concerns is most important to you?”How to test for this:Read your argument as if you mildly disagreed with it. Does it feel like there’s space for you to express that disagreement? Or does it feel like the argument is telling you you’re stupid or evil if you don’t agree completely?If it’s the latter, you’re shutting down discussion even if your logic is sound.The fix: Replace absolute claims with specific, evidence-based claims. Acknowledge trade-offs. Show you’ve considered other perspectives. Ask questions that invite response rather than making only declarations.Note on politicians: This same principle applies when discussing why you support or oppose specific politicians. “I like X because they’re good” or “I hate Y because they’re terrible” leaves massive gaps. Better: “I support X because they’ve consistently voted for policies that expand affordable housing, and housing costs are my main concern” or “I oppose Y because they’ve changed position on major issues three times in two years, which makes me distrust what they’ll actually do in office.” You’ve explained your reasoning rather than just stating a preference.Red Flags in Your Own ArgumentsWatch for these warning signs that your argument needs work:Red flag: Using only sources that agree with youIf every source you cite reaches the same conclusion you’ve reached, you haven’t tested your position. You’ve looked for confirmation.Red flag: Attacking people rather than addressing their concernsIf your argument involves claims about the motives, character, or intelligence of people who disagree, you’re making a weak argument.Red flag: Claiming certainty about uncertain thingsIf you’re saying things are “proven” or “definitely true” about complex social policies with mixed evidence, you’re overstating your case.Red flag: Ignoring obvious counterargumentsIf there are well-known objections to your position that you don’t address at all, people will notice. This makes you look either ignorant or dishonest.Red flag: All benefits, no trade-offsIf your argument presents your proposal as having only advantages and no disadvantages, you’re being unrealistic. Every policy choice involves trade-offs.Red flag: Emotional appeals replacing logicIf your argument relies heavily on making people feel outraged, afraid, or guilty rather than helping them understand evidence and reasoning, you’re manipulating rather than persuading.Using These TestsYou don’t need to apply all these tests to every casual conversation. But when you’re forming positions on important issues, or preparing to discuss something you care deeply about, run through them.The goal is making your arguments as strong as possible before you present them. Finding your own weaknesses is how you do that. If you find a weakness, you can either fix it or adjust your position. Both make you more credible and more persuasive.Arguments that survive these tests are arguments worth making. They’re clear, well-sourced, honest about assumptions, fair to opponents, and invite engagement. These are the arguments that actually change minds rather than just starting rows.This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit persefonecoaching.substack.com/subscribe