Argumentation as a constructive exercise

Regarding my column piece last Tuesday, I received an email from a domain 'mfa.gov.cn,' suggesting it is from an office related to Chinese diplomatic missions. The tone was respectful and straightforward, which I appreciated.

The sender did not identify herself in the email. Nonetheless, I appreciate the effort to present an opposing perspective on the 2016 Arbitral Ruling regarding China’s claims in the South China Sea. The sender provided a link to an article published in DAP News, a Cambodian news outlet.

The article in DAP News (https://dap-news.com/international/2024/05/06/412886/) presents arguments challenging the legality and validity of the South China Sea Arbitration Awards, with a structured critique highlighting various legal aspects. While the points raised in the article could be countered by Philippine officials, I prefer to reserve that debate for another column space. Instead, I would just like to emphasize to my readers that it's entirely possible to disagree and engage in discussions respectfully and in good faith, upholding protocols and maintaining decorum.

Speaking of proper decorum in argumentation, it has become rare in this age of social media to engage in constructive argumentation. In my university classes, I have always emphasized to my students that argumentation is a worthy activity when conducted properly and in good faith.

The terms 'argue' and 'argument' are often seen negatively, akin to quarrels filled with rancor --loud, emotional, and counterproductive. However, it shouldn’t be this way. Disagreements degenerate into bitter quarrels or even violent confrontations when parties abandon reason. Arguing, in essence, is the practice of justifying claims. The alternative to arguing is to accept or reject claims impulsively, based on whims or caprices.

Ideally, we aim to influence others to our side in a non-coercive manner, meaning we don’t badger or threaten them. We address issues by making claims and providing reasons that we, in good faith, find justifiable and acceptable. In fact, experts in argumentation describe it as a cooperative exercise. This often confuses my students before I can explain it further. They ask: “How can argumentation be cooperative when parties are arguing?”

There are at least two reasons why argumentation is a cooperative activity. One is that both sides risk having to alter or modify their beliefs or stance when presented with a compelling argument they cannot counter. Committing to one’s position regardless of the outcome of the argumentation is foolish.

Another reason why argumentation is a cooperative exercise is that the parties in a dispute actually share some level of agreement. If there were no shared or common values, there would be no point in trying to convince the audience and each other about the soundness of one's stance.

For example, in the South China Sea dispute, we assume that all parties involved, despite their conflicting territorial claims, share a common commitment to maintaining a rules-based order in the region. Otherwise, what would be the point of arguing about which stance aligns with a rules-based order if one party explicitly states from the outset that it does not believe in a rules-based order?

Another shared value among the nations involved is their mutual interest in regional stability and economic prosperity. This common ground forms the foundation for diplomatic efforts and negotiations.

However, in this age of social media and digital communication, trolls and other bad actors who now have the tools to publish have muddled the issues and poisoned the communication ecosystem. Anonymity has allowed many people to unleash their base instincts, engaging in bashing and name-calling instead of reasoning.

Social media algorithms, driven by profit motives, prioritize engagement and the number of views over content quality, thus incentivizing the creation and spread of unethical content. As a result, most people on the internet are fed more information that fosters hate or mindless scrolling rather than reflective judgment.

Internet content and algorithms cater to our confirmation biases and exploit our innate psychological tendencies when processing information. The worst part is that we often aren't aware we're being manipulated. As one journalist friend of mine noted, news sites these days frequently include prayers in their reports on tragedies or disasters, not for any religious reasons, but because netizens tend to respond with 'Amen', and these responses significantly drive up engagement.

Without journalistic integrity and media literacy, the shared values that enable us to engage in constructive argumentation --where the best ideas prevail, a hallmark of our modern society that has served us well for decades-- will crumble.