Grounds

• You might sometimes hear people say, “I would argue that….” and then make a claim. For example, someone might say, “I would argue that LeBron James is the greatest NBA player of all time.” Or “I would argue that this policy, despite intentions, actually makes inflation worse.” Often, no grounds for accepting the claim are offered, though presumably, they could be offered if you ask a simple question: “Why?” When someone asks “Why?” or “What makes you say that?” or a similar question, they are indicating that they resist (or do not yet see) the connection between the claim and the grounds for the claim.

• In arguing, the arguer is asking their audience to go on a journey, a movement from where the audience is right now to where the arguer invites them to be.

  • In the first example above, the arguer is saying “Come join me over here, where we accept that LeBron James is the greatest NBA player of all time.”

  • In the second example, the arguer is saying “Come join me over here, where we accept that this policy worsens inflation.” So unless the audience already accepts the claim and the grounds for the claim, the arguer will likely have to provide those grounds. Grounds are what make the journey from where the audience is now to where the arguer is inviting them to be possible.

• What grounds might be offered for the claim that LeBron James is the greatest NBA player of all time? Notice that what we call “grounds” might shift. What seems to count the most? The number of championships won by teams he has been a part of? His contributions to other teammates’ success? The overall win-loss record of teams when he is in the game? His salary and endorsements? His longevity? His philanthropy?

• You can see that, pretty quickly, you might have to deal with the preliminary issue of the criteria for “greatness” (a definition stasis) and maybe refine the term to something more concrete and mutually understandable as constituting support. But presumably, you and the arguer could come to an understanding of what kinds of grounds might make a journey from where you are now over to where the arguer is inviting you to be: statistics, percentages, the strength of the team’s scheduled opponents, etc.

• What grounds might be offered for the claim that a particular policy, despite the intentions of its proponents, actually makes inflation worse, not better? Again, you might have to settle on how and when “worsening” occurs, and by how much, and for whom (so, cause and effect, etc.). But it should not be too difficult to see that you and the arguer might agree on what could grounds might support their claim: economic data, similar policies in the past, expert conclusions, and so on.

So we see that grounds are evidence, data, analysis, or accepted authorities that make the journey over from where the audience is now over to where the arguer is inviting them to be more or less reliable. Grounds answers the Why? question. It serves the because… function.