COUNTER ARGUMENTATION

The term counter-argumentation can be used to refer to any kind of discourse, argued refutation or objection, that openly opposes an argument. A simple “No!” can be considered as a counter-argumentative move, even a non-verbal expression of rejection that is clearly interpretable as such.

In contrast to direct refutation, a specific “argumentation vs. counter-argumentation” situation occurs when the refutation is reciprocal and indirect:

— Speaker S1 argues for proposition M.
— Speaker S2 counter-argues for proposition R, which is incompatible with M:

S1 — Let’s build the new school here, the land is cheaper.
S2 — Let’s build the new school there, the students will waste less time commuting

S2 makes a counter-proposition R, which is an alternative to M.

Argumentation and counter-argumentation play a reciprocal role in refutation. In such a polarized situation, the fact of providing a reason for doing R that is incompatible with M, serves as a reason for not doing M. Any good reason for supporting R is seen as a counterargument to M.

The argumentation / counter-argumentation structure can correspond to an emerging argumentative situation, or to the moments when the participants present and argue their position without considering the antagonist’s proposal, which can occur at any time in a concrete argumentative situation.

An argued position can be presented in isolation in an autonomous text without refuting or even mentioning an existing counter-argumentation. Such a strongly assertive strategy avoids the paradoxes of refutation, but can be seen as a kind of contempt for the argument of the opposing party, see Question; Contradiction; Antithesis; Dismissal.

As with weak refutations, a weak counter-argumentation strengthens the position being attacked. In the following passage, Noam Chomsky considers that his opponent, the philosopher Hillary Putnam, has failed to develop a counter-argument, not even a counter-proposal, and argues that this shows that he, Chomsky, must be right:

So far, in my view, not only [Putnam] has not justified his positions, but he has not been able to clarify what these positions are. The fact that even such an outstanding philosopher fails to do so, may allow us to conclude that…
Noam Chomsky, [Discussion on Putnam’s Comments], 1979.[1]

Praising one’s opponent as an « exceptional philosopher » is a characteristically eulogistic and perfidious accompaniment to this kind of refutation:

By refuting you, I’m not refuting just any philosopher, but a Master – and therefore, a fortiori, all the philosophers who oppose to my views.

S. Politeness; Ignorance; Paradoxes.

[1] Noam Chomsky, Discussion sur les Commentaires de Putnam. In Piattelli-Palmarini M. (ed.). Théorie du Langage, Théorie de l’Apprentissage. Paris: Le Seuil. 1979. P. 461.
[Discussion of Putnam’s Comments. In Piattelli-Palmarini M. (ed.). Language Theory, Learning Theory.]