The following excerpt is from an article originally published in College English, Volume 59, Number 6, October 1997. It is copyright 1997 by the National Council of Teachers of English. If we keep the following guidelines in mind, we may find our academic discourse is more interesting, more satisfying, and more edifying, and we will certainly find that our arguments are more persuasive and honest.
GROUND RULES FOR POLEMICISTS: THE CASE OF LYNNE CHENEY'S TRUTHS
by Donald Lazere
In the overheated rhetoric of the culture wars, in which leftists and rightists seem to mimic each other in reviling their opponents as Orwellian twisters of the truth, and in an arena where the concept of objectivity is itself a contested issue, is it possible to delineate any objective criteria for judging the relative credibility of opposing arguments? By objective criteria I mean a set of ground rules that both sides would agree to abide by, at least in principle, and to which the extent of a writer's or speaker's compliance is demonstrable, to the satisfaction of those of good will on both sides. I do believe that following such principles of fair play can make it possible to engage in polemics--heatedly partisan argumentation--without lapsing into the irresponsible, onesided tactics of invective, and to persuade to one's side those on the other or on the fence who maintain an open mind and equal commitment to those principles. Toward this ideal, I propose the following:
Ground Rules for Polemicists [and for all people wishing to argue ideas with integrity]
Do unto your own as you do unto others. Apply the same standards to yourself and your allies that you do to your opponents, in all of the following ways.
Identify your own ideological viewpoint and how it might bias your arguments. Having done so, show that you approach opponents' actions and writings with an open mind, not with malice aforethought. Concede the other side's valid arguments--preferably toward the beginning of your critique, not tacked on grudgingly at the end or in inconspicuous subordinate clauses. Acknowledge points on which you agree at least partially and might be able to cooperate.
Summarize the other side's case fully and fairly, in an account that they would accept, prior to refuting it. Present it through its most reputable spokespeople and strongest formulations (not through the most outlandish statements of its lunatic fringe), using direct quotes and footnoted sources, not your own undocumented paraphrases. Allow the most generous interpretation of their statements rather than putting the worst light on them; help them make their arguments stronger when possible.
When quoting selected phrases from the other side's texts, accurately summarize the context and tone of the longer passages and full texts in which they appear.
When you are repeating a second-hand account of events, say so--do not leave the implication that you were there and are certain of its accuracy. Cite your source and take account of its author's possible biases, especially if the author is your ally.
In any account that you use to illustrate the opponents' misbehavior, grant that there may be another side to the story and take pains to find out what it is. If opponents claim they have been misrepresented, give them their say and the benefit of the doubt.
Be willing to acknowledge misconduct, errors, and fallacious arguments by your own allies, and try scrupulously to establish an accurate proportion and sense of reciprocity between them and those you criticize in your opponents. Do not play up the other side's forms of power while denying or downplaying your own side's.
Respond forthrightly to opponents' criticisms of your own or your side's previous arguments, without evading key points. Admit it when they make criticisms you cannot refute.
Do not substitute derision for reasoned argument and substantive evidence.