.

There are 6 arguments for which you will need to choose 2 and provide good, well thought out
counter- arguments.

As preparation for the assignment, please read the following passage.

Counter-arguments:

A counter-argument attempts to show that our opponent's conclusion is false or problematic by

constructing a different argument altogether to support a conclusion that is inconsistent with the
original conclusion. For example:

ROY: The state must retain the right to apply the death penalty in extreme cases. I believe that
any person who commits cold-blooded, premeditated murder is unfit to remain a member of any
civilized community. By their act of denying another's right to life, they have renounced their
own right to life, and the state is therefore entitled to put them to death.

DALE: The trouble with your position is that it brings the state down to the level of the
murderer. If the right to life is so important, then don't you think the state ought to show how
important it is by refusing to execute anyone, no matter how heinous his or her crime? The real

question is whether you want to live in a society where the government from time to time kills
some of its citizens.

Notice that Dale makes no attempt to challenge any of Roy's premises and does not even suggest
that Roy's conclusion does not follow from his premises. In fact, she is actually in partial
agreement with one of Roy's premises: that there is a right to life. But she ignores Roy's
argument and attempts instead to show that the state ought not to inflict the death penalty by
appealing to a different set of premises. Every genuine counter-argument has this feature: it
ignores the premises of the original argument and presents an independent set of reasons in
support of a contrary conclusion.

Every weak argument is therefore open to a counter-argument. In fact, counterarguments can

often be developed against arguments whose weakness we are unable to identify. If we are
presented with an argument whose conclusion we are reluctant to accept, there are two possible
explanations for our reluctance: (a) the argument is weak, or (b) we are being irrational about the
matter. If the argument really is weak, then we ought to be able to describe the weakness in such
a way as to persuade our opponent. But if, as sometimes happens, we cannot do so, we would
have to concede that our refusal to accept it may be irrational. In these circumstances it can be
very useful to attempt to develop a counter-argument. If we can develop a plausible one, then we
have a good reason to believe that our opponent's argument is weak and that we are not being
irrational.

In addition, a good counter-argument can often suggest what is weak about the original
argument. In the above example, Dale's counter-argument does suggest a line of attack on Roy's
argument. Roy appeals to the fact that murderers have denied the right to life of their victims as a
reason for claiming that murderers have renounced their own right to life. Dale's argument relies
on the premise that the right to life cannot be lost by anyone, which suggests a way of attacking
this sub-argument: she could argue that it violates the criterion of adequacy. We do not as a rule
hold that, if lates some right of B's, the state should deny A the same right; that if I, for example,
violate your freedom of religion, the state should force me to become a Baptist. Consequently,
Roy's sub-argument needs more support in order to be acceptable.

To develop good counter-arguments we have to be familiar with the subject under discussion,
and we have to care about the issue as well. Counter-arguments cannot be developed merely as a
reaction against an argument that looks weak. There are no logical rules for producing a good
counter-argument. We have to be sceptical about our opponent's conclusion, which means we
should have reasons for our scepticism. It is only on the basis of the reasons that lead us to be
sceptical that we can develop a good counter-argument.

Counter-arguments are often found in debates over controversial issues. In fact, in controversial
contexts we can most easily see the chief drawback to the method of counter-argument. We are
all aware that in debates over controversial matters both sides often seem to pay no attention to
the arguments of the other side. Both sides seem content to repeat, over and over again, their
arguments, all the while ignoring the arguments of their opponents. To avoid such behaviour, we

should use counter-arguments not as an excuse to stop thinking rationally about the issue but as a
useful tool for carrying forward a rational enquiry. Not only can they suggest weaknesses in our
opponents' arguments, but they can give us a better understanding of the issue. A serious attempt
to develop a counter-argument against a given argument, and then to examine the two as
dispassionately as we can, will give us a deeper understanding of any complex issue.

The Arguments

Suggest a plausible counter-argument against any 2 of the following 6 arguments:

1.

The capitalist economic system is superior to any other system. Western civilization has

advanced more since capitalism emerged in the late seventeenth century than in the previous
2,000 years, and these advances could not have occurred except for the tremendous explosion of
productivity brought about by capitalism. It may not be perfect, but it is clearly superior to all its
rivals.

2.

Parliament committed a serious blunder in 1967 when it removed attempted suicide from

the Criminal Code. Until then it had been a criminal offence for anyone to attempt to commit

suicide. The value of the old law was not that it made it possible for the courts to punish those
who were so disturbed or depressed that they wanted to end their lives. Its value was that it gave
the police the right to apprehend someone who was threatening to take his or her own life. The
way things are now, if the police find someone threatening suicide, they cannot interfere, for the
person is doing nothing illegal. And since most people who threaten suicide are really pleading
for help, we should have a law that permits the police to interfere first and ask questions later.

3.

Teachers in primary and secondary schools should avoid introducing any controversial

political or ethical issues into the classroom. Such discussions tend to be divisive and to create
friction among students. They lead many parents to feel that the school is subverting their
authority as parents. And they allow teachers to abuse their authority and to impose their values
upon their students.

4.

Each year, Maclean's magazine publishes a ranking of Canadian universities. One of the

criteria used is the grade average of students entering first year. This is an absurd criterion when
used as a basis for determining the quality of a university. It is like determining the quality of a
judge on the basis of the seriousness of the cases heard by him or her. The quality of a university

should depend not on the quality of entering students, but on what happens to them after they
arrive.

5.

Most Western governments are willing to negotiate with terrorists to obtain the release of

hostages or to achieve other goals. This is an ill-advised policy. What governments should do is
to announce that their policy will always be to refuse to negotiate with terrorists under any
circumstances and then to adhere rigorously to this policy. They should inform all their citizens
that this is their new policy and that those who travel abroad should not expect the government to
negotiate for their release should they be taken hostage by terrorists. Once terrorist groups
realized that a government was serious about its refusal to negotiate under any circumstances,
they would realize that their terrorist acts were useless or even counter- productive. They would
be forced to cease their terrorist acts, and fewer people would suffer as a result.

6.

Government spending on the arts is wasteful and should be abolished. If some particular

artists or poets or singers are recognized as good by enough of the public, they will be able to
make a decent living by selling their books or giving concerts, in which case they don't need
government hand-outs. But if they can't make a decent living it must be because not enough

people think they are good enough to buy their books or go to their concerts. In this case, there is
no justification for subsidizing artists who are regarded by Canadians as second best. So all
support programs for the arts should be eliminated

ANSWER

3.

In any case teachers in both primary and secondary schools play a significant role in the
upbringing of the children. They are the closet parents to our children as they spend most of their
time with the children except for holidays. It is during holidays that parents try to exercise their
noble authority as parents to the children even though most find little time with the children and
passing on information concerning politics and ethics is done narrowly at limited time and
instead the little found is spend on picnics and at any rate the children are also subject to attend
to their homework, play games and watch TV at their leisure time. It becomes so tricky to extend
learning to the children and in this case the teacher remains as the only subtle object entitled with

the responsibility as failure on their part constitutes failing children in matters of politics and
ethics and one not need to say that such a system will bring up all round people. Should I not
mean that teachers are should impart controversial ideas on politics and ethics but should do with
moderation when time calls for it.
6.

Art is one aspect about life that cannot be a separate entity from mans life if sanity has to

be revered. One thing about art that the society should put in mind is that it constitutes to the
well-being of our lives through entertainment. The artists on the other hand meet a significant
number of challenges on their way of creating art and many who deem not fit for this challenging
task stumble on the way, needless to say that on falling, they dont ever rise. The government
comes in handy to check on the lives of those that persevere and in my view, this aims at
encouraging them to move on, it is also an encouragement to those who are yet to rise, not to
mention those on their way of rising since it is a difficult task rising to the top or to any
significant level of recognition. Talent notwithstanding, one needs the manpower, the tricks, the
guts and to a larger extend money to spend so as to polish up the piece of art at hand. Speaking
on behalf of singers, it is one pretty piece of art that demands a significantly enough funding to
produce the songs. I would not want to impose the government into keeping this ritual of
spending on the artists but on a rational scale, if the fans in concerts and book buyers and
subscribers, to mention but a few channels for their income, are not a willing lot to meet the
artists expenses, where should our source of happiness, the very artists seek solace?