So far, the primary debates have  contained lots of assertions, but very little argument Most have conveyed little evidence, confused the nature of facts and conflated the different types of assertions. Before we delve any deeper into the rhetorical toolbox and look at the role assertions play in a logical argument, let me offer three general principles on the nature of assertions play in.

 

  1. Where assertions go untested, assumption passes for fact. Assertions demand evidence to support them and require sound reasoning to connect the assertion and the evidence. Some assertions during the debate are simply taken as a given, with the assumption that so many people accept them, there’s no need to offer any proof. On the Republican side, one such assertion takes the form of “Obamacare is a disaster.” On the Democratic side, it’s “The wealthy pay too few taxes.” Both of these assertions may turn into reasonable arguments, but in the absence of support, they remain only party orthodoxy. Why is Obamacare a disaster? Do fewer people have insurance? Is it costing jobs? Is healthcare now more expensive? Who are the “wealthy” and how what rate of taxes should they pay? Should individuals and businesses be taxed at a different weight? How much tax is too little and too much? It’s true that one can say only so much in the thirty-second, one-minute, two- minute formats, but that doesn’t give candidates a pass on providing evidence or defining their terms.
  2. Questions of facts are not questions for debate. By question of fact, I mean any statement that can be verified by empirical measurement (The current jobless rate in the U.S. is 5.5%), reference to a rule or record (China is not part of the Pacific Free Trade Agreement), or objective observation (The Congressional estimates cutting funding for Planned Parenthood would cut government spending by $450 million in 2015-2016). Statements presented as facts can be proven either true or false, so there’s no use in arguing about them. When something is a fact, it doesn’t matter whether people agree with it. It draws on external verification for its validity. You can argue about the interpretation of facts and whether they support an assertion, but it’s unproductive to argue about the fact itself. Arguments always contain an element of uncertainty that requires us to weigh evidence and evaluate reasoning. We should check facts or rely on fact checkers to satisfy ourselves that what is being passed off as a fact is truthful.
  3. Assertions can be categorized as questions of definition, causation, value and policy. This distinction has importance because different types of assertions will rely on different types of reasoning and different types of evidence. Also, the point of tension or clash differs in each. Let me briefly explain distinctions and look at some examples.

Questions of Definition argue that A belongs in the class of B. Clinton: “But wait, I just want to say this Senator. There is broad consensus, 92 percent in the most recent poll of Americans want gun safety measures…and 85 percent of gun owners agree.” [2nd Democratic debate] [Watch it] Clinton uses this figure (and what recent poll is she referring to?) as irrefutable proof that only the National Rifle Association’s bullying of Congress stands in the way of enacting this legislation. But this isn’t so much evidence as it is a definitional question. For example, when you ask gun owners what “gun safety measures” they want, they could be referring to barring felons and the mentally ill from gun purchases, prohibiting the BATF from setting up sting operations where weapons fall into the wrong hands and perhaps  requiring completion of a training course before a concealed carry permit is issued. Clinton might well mean barring private firearm sales without a background check, limiting the number of gun purchases by an individual or banning assault weapons. The whole question of banning “assault” weapons is fraught with definitional issues over what constitutes an “assault” weapon. Is an assault weapon defined by caliber, magazine capacity, stock configuration or something entirely different? The point is that you can’t really have a meaningful discussion about gun safety measures until you define what specific actions each side is defining as a gun safety measure. Some examples of definitional assertions:

What we need is meaningful tax reform

 Hedge fund managers’ compensation is too high

 Obama has implemented unconstitutional executive actions

Questions of Causation argue that A causes B. When Fiorina said: “And now what do we have with Dodd-Frank? The classic of crony capitalism. The big have gotten bigger, 1,590 community banks have gone out of business, and on top of all that, we’ve created something called the Consumer Financial Production Bureau…” [4th Republican debate], [Watch it] she’s making the assertion that the banks’ failures have been caused by Dodd-Frank.

Rubio: “20 — over 40 percent of small and mid-size banks that loan money to small businesses have been wiped out over the — since Dodd-Frank has passed.” [1st Republican debate]  [Watch it] It’s a familiar theme among the Republican candidates, but no one has offered an explanation of how Dodd-Frank caused the failures of these banks (other than to say excessive regulation hurts them) nor how it has caused big banks to get bigger.

It’s also critical to distinguish correlation (A and B occurring at about the same time or co-existing), from causation (A causing B). Democrats are fond of repeating the assertion that the presence of guns leads to (causes) violence, but have failed to point to any evidence of such causation, relying instead on correlation. Some examples of causal assertions:

Lowering the tax rate on businesses creates more jobs.

 Raising the retirement age will keep Social Security solvent longer

 Reducing regulation on banks will make it easier for small businesses to get loans

 Questions of Value argue that we should prefer A over B. Value assertions ask us to evaluate general principles and decide which is better, more fair or more just. Huckabee calls his tax plan the “FairTax”, attaching value by implication. “The FairTax transforms the process by which we fund Social Security and Medicare because the money paid in consumption is paid by everybody, including illegals, prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, all the people that are freeloading off the system now.” [1st Republican debate] Some examples of value assertions:

Granting amnesty to people who are here illegally isn’t fair to those who followed the system.

 Catching terrorists is more important that strictly following the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

 Means testing is the fairest way to distribute Social Security and Medicare benefits.

 Once a value assertion has been established, or a large number of people agree with it, the next logical step will usually be a policy assertion that seeks to implement a plan consistent with the accepted value.

 Questions of Policy argue that we should implement A or avoid B.

 Sound policy assertions contain three parts; Establishing a need, offering a plan to address the need and demonstrating solvency (showing that the plan offered will solve the need). The need or problem should exist and have significant negative impact if left unaddressed. This is called indicting the status quo (the way things are). Almost all the candidates on both sides agree that climate change is a problem. The main differences in the parties center around how to solve it and whether the proposed solution will have a significant impact. At other times, the problem identified is questionable. Note Carson’s response to a query on the link between vaccinations and autism:

…there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism. This was something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago, and it has not been adequately, you know, revealed to the public what’s actually going on. Vaccines are very important. Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. [2nd Republican debate] [Watch it]

In other words, Carson is arguing the problem doesn’t exist. 

The plan itself expresses the policy assertion. It usually takes the form or “we should…” The solvency section of a policy assertion demonstrates how the plan will solve the problem identified and that the advantages to the plan outweigh the disadvantages. For example, if we recognize that traffic deaths are a problem, we might propose a national 35 MPH speed limit. That would significantly reduce the number of traffic deaths, but the disadvantages (lost time and productivity) make it unworkable, so the plan doesn’t demonstrate solvency. Some examples of policy assertions:

We should reinstate the Glass-Steagal act.

 We should deport all illegal immigrants

We should prohibit Syrian refugees from entering the United States

In conclusion, overlap will often exist among these different assertions as one type naturally progresses to another. I’d also ask you to remember that argument isn’t science. Some doubt will always exist, but people do make stronger and weaker arguments—these shouldn’t be judged by whom you agree and disagree with. As you watch the subsequent debates, please keep this advice for candidates who are really interested in reasoned argument in mind:

  • Don’t argue about facts—prove or disprove them. Don’t make up your own facts to support your position—people who do are either ignorant of the facts or liars.
  • Define the terms of argument so you’re not comparing apples with oranges.
  • When you say some policy will lead to X (more jobs, stronger economy, greater security, erosion of the constitution, socialism, etc.), provide some evidence.
  • Make it clear what values underlie your policy proposals.
  • Prove something is broken before you start talking about how to fix it.

Determining the type of assertion someone is making has another advantage; when you begin identifying fallacies, you’ll need to start with the assertion. Then you’ll more clearly see the evidence (or lack of it) and the reasoning behind the argument.