The purpose of an argument cannot be defined as being only one. In some situations, arguments exist to criticize a certain group of people whereas some arguments exist to champion and empower others. Also, arguments can take in places, but they are mostly existent in debates or in discussions; in this case, the prime purpose of arguing is to convince the other party. Moreover, there are many ways one can argue through. One might argue by creating an emotion attachment, one might argue with reasoning, or one might even argue through fallacies. However, in proper debates, where formality is highly required, arguing with reasoning is the most effective and also appropriate way. In this blog post, I will explain why this is the case.
Although all our 'WOKs' are biased, reasoning and logic are the least biased. This is because reasoning and logic are based on knowledge that are objective and believed to be true. For example, in a political debate, although many fallacies and pathos are used among advocates, their arguments sound incredible and unconvincing if reasoning is laid as a foundation. Rather than just denouncing the other candidate, which is the ad hominem fallacy, it is more effective if the candidate exhibits abundant knowledge of that topic. Also, in many debates, especially those related to politics, the black and white fallacy is highly apparent. Even though there are many potential solutions to a problem, all the candidates seem to stick to only 2 decisions, one opposing the other.
