Argument is Everywhere

According to an old high school teacher,  man kind will not  reach its grand finale through dinosaur-killing asteroids,  global warming, nuclear warfare, religious phenomena, or a world wide plague.  Instead, he predicted that earth’s most competitive creatures will continue to march on to a less glamorous, yet equally devastating end.

“We’re going to breed ourselves off the planet,” he asserted. Moreover,  he enjoyed comically pointing out one‘s individual responsibility to the globe‘s rising population. “If your parents had more than two kids, they’re selfish”.

 The cartoon above depicts a stork struggling to ferry a multi-racial group of new-borns, while the word “resources” is stamped across its belly . The picture reminded me of my teacher’s argument regarding the issue of overpopulation. On one hand,  human numbers are rapidly escalating to astonishing numbers, depleting natural resources to accommodate the growing masses. For example, in order to make room for more people, the demand  for urban development exerts pressure on the environment: deforestation is needed to create space. Industrial waste is produced. Pre-existing species are either expelled from their natural habitats or pushed to the brink of extinction.  More land and water are required to farm and expand. More fossil-fuel is extracted to power every vehicle on the planet. Every year the demand for these resources grow. More food. More space. More oil. More. More. More.

On the other hand,  finding solutions to the issue of overpopulation becomes a matter of moral conduct. If an individual isn’t entrusted to diminish the number of offsprings they allow themselves to have, who is?  The family? The community? The Government? Ideally, reducing the world’s population would mean two children per family, one to replace each parent as they grow old and die. But granting a higher authority the power to determine how many children each individual is allowed to have brings the issue dangerously close to  a totalitarian arena.  Debate would thread on where to limit this new authority, how would one ensure people obey this “ideal” law, who should be punished if the individual exceeds child capacity, the parent or the child, and how? Should the excess offspring be sent to foster care, or should the parent be allowed to keep their kids under financial penalty? The problem in trying to decrease the world’s population is that approaching the matter seems heartless in nature and too dangerous to individual freedom.  But choosing a passive approach to the issue means harming the environment in order to extract its resources for the sole purpose of sustaining the inclining numbers.  Drawing back to my teacher’s original argument, individual responsibility is key to saving the environment.

He would have chastised my parents for being selfish: a unit that did not plan on having a son and two daughters. However, my family, and millions of others in America are seen optimistically as the beginning of the decline.  In an age were contraception is widely used, the working force encourages both men and women on board, and financial stability means having a small family, results in each generation having fewer children than previous one: A great-grandmother boasted of a family of 14 children. My mother’s mother had seven, my mother only had three, and I don’t expect to support more than two.

The issue of overpopulation is not black and white. It invites argument, new ideas, more efficient use of resources, and better tools to encourage smaller families for each generation.It inspires individual responsibility for the sake of well-guarded personal freedoms and a healthy planet. After all, we don’t want be selfish.

Three Ways To A Good Argument

 As long as an issue provokes more than one opinion, argument will prevail. From the combat-oriented debates between family members, to the complex, yet consensual agreements amongst international leaderships, argument takes place in our everyday lives.  While underage, you argue with your parents to secure a broader spectrum of personal freedoms. In school, you argue to let your opinions be heard. In a job, you might argue to increase your salary, or reach a consensus amongst your peers, such as ways to run a business, or simply how to build a house. The best  ways to argue  lies in your ability to control your emotions, to  find common ground--as stated in Perspectives on Arguments by Nancy Wood--and to understand the issue and its facts well. A well-rounded argument using those three key goals sparks confidence in such ways that allows you to control the situation, weather its nature is traditional or consensual.

   Although it’s good to argue with passion, letting emotions get the better of you hinders your ability to think clearly, causing you to quickly get offended and engage in angry, un-intelligent disputes that might turn your listener off.  One of my parents is a prime example. That  parent’s style is well suited while going up against a haughty teenager: it’s aggressive, relentless  nature leaves no room for  an opponent to think clearly, much less speak, for that style is composed of  one continuous rant after another. But it also leaves no room for debates and hinders all possibility of establishing common ground. The opponent cannot disagree and argue back, ending the debate fast. Most times, the opponent will have no choice but to tune the arguer out.  Keeping your emotions in check allows you to understand what your opponent is saying, keeping yourself open to a different perspective and ideas that you might not have thought of until you heard them from someone else. Thinking clearly without emotional setbacks also allows you  to stay on track with the factual side of the issue, rather than dwelling on pure emotions, and in cases where facts are scarce, such as the arguer dealing with a new issue altogether, having a cool head allows the you to search for new, innovate ways to retaliate in a debate.  For example, a student might be new to the topic of immigration, but might form an opinion by drawing information from past experience or stepping into the shoes of an advocate.

Establishing common ground draws both an audience and an opponent to your words. This method is key when the arguer attempts to either reach an agreement or change the minds of their opponent and audience.  Again, another example is one of my other parents. That parent’s passive-aggressive style won over listeners by first finding shared interests, then spinning their own ideas over that. As a child I dreamed of a luxurious home, and by exploiting the method of common ground, that parent not only convinced me to keep college as a number one priority, but also to work hard on my grades, extracurricular, and search for financial aid.

While finding ways to establish common ground and keeping your emotions in order is efficient, relying on facts is crucial to staying on top of an argument.  You gain credibility and dominance of the issue if you employ solid information as your evidence. For example, the Eco Action Service Learning team promoted a smoke-free school, and while at first I failed to understand why anyone would support the removal of a “personal right”--as a team member put it--I agreed on a personal basis as the very same member offered facts: The number of cigarette butts found around campus infiltrated and tainted fresh groundwater, while second-hand smoke posed other students, particularly those suffering asthma, a number of health problems. The member also reminded of the campus’ luscious canopy, which posed a threat should a student drop a lit cigarette there.  The member gained support over the issue of a smoke-free school, by finding common ground with an audience that cared about the environment, kept her head leveled and open to any suggestions, thus attracting her audience’s attention, and concluded her ideas with useful and reliable evidence.