Main Entry: ar·gu·ment
Pronunciation: 'är-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : an outward sign
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal
3 a : the act or process of arguing b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c : the angle assigned to a complex number when it is plotted in a complex plane using polar co-ordinates

Arguments are said to be one of the most important elements in a debater's speech. Though many of us have used them, few actually know what they really are. It turns out, philosophers have been trying to find an accurate definition for them for ages. As you can see above, I have included a couple of definitions found in a typical dictionary. Some of them might look good, but are they really sufficient? How do you distinguish between an argument and an example? If they both follow the dictionary's definition, how can you tell if an opposition whip is actually bringing up a new argument or a new example?

These are just a few of the questions that have been bothering both of us Judges™ for years. Though some have failed to grasp the seriousness of our concern, we've kept asking people to tell us "What an argument really is" since the beginning of our debating career. Not surprisingly, most of the answers we got were amazingly similar to those we found in dictionaries. Not good enough! It should be clear by now, that the word "argument" is an ill-defined word.

So what is it? Do I have an answer for you, or am I just wasting your time by making you read my ravings? Yes, I do have an answer! The reason why you couldn't find a way to define "argument", is because there is no such thing. Yes folks, I'm sorry if this ruined your day, but there are no arguments. If a speech persuades you, we say it had great arguments, otherwise we'll say it didn't. But this doesn't mean there is such a thing. It's just a word we use to describe our perception of being convinced by something. Then again, just about all the words are used to describe our perceptions about things. That is how we communicate with our environment. So maybe there are arguments, if we believe in them, if they have convinced us about something. But this doesn't mean that these arguments exist universally, they only exist to us, because we were the only ones touched by them.

This is getting ugly, isn't it? Wait till you see what's next. The existence of arguments lies in the eyes of the beholder. Consequently, if you believe that something is an argument, if you know it has actually convinced you about something, then it has to exist for you. On the other hand, if the person next to you notices a flaw in it's reasoning, they are going to think it is a flawed or invalid statement, they will not be convinced, and therefore it won't exist for them as an argument. Who is right? Does it exist or doesn't it? It doesn't matter who's right! Maybe it is actually flawed, or maybe the person next to you is wrong in thinking the statement is invalid. All that matters is that one will define it as an argument and the other will not.

So how can you tell it from an example? You can't! Since it is all just based on perception, there is no actual way of telling between the two. The only meaningful difference is the way you label them. Ok, enough, I guess I've tired you enough. Let's try a better approach for looking at what an argument really is. This is the best description we've found in years. It is not wordy, yet since a picture is worth a thousand words, it works just as well...