[MUSIC PLAYING] - So you've just written up an argument on the topic you've been researching. You know it'll be scrutinized by your professor, but you're not quite sure how. Enter counterarguments. When constructing an argument, it's beneficial to anticipate what kind of points the opposition may make against your argument. If you anticipate what arguments your opponents might make to discredit you, you can cut them off at the pass by showing how their arguments are not solid. That is called a counterargument. 

In other words, a surefire way to ensure your position is well-defended is to build a good offense. Attack your own position to find weak spots, and build your defenses. It's all about anticipating what your opponents might say, saying it first, and showing why it's wrong. 

Let's say you're making the argument that private citizens should not be able to own tigers. Now that we've identified the arguments, we can also identify two sides; your side-- those for private tiger ownership regulation-- along with the opposition-- those against. Ask yourself what kind of argument your opponent would make against your position. 

Building a strong counterargument takes three steps. First, identify the naysayers. Personifying the opposition gives the counterargument some context. You can take it a step further by identifying a specific person who embodies the perspective you're trying to represent. For example, your professor may even have a private tiger that they take for walks. 

Second, represent objections fairly. A weak counterargument does very little to support your own argument. This is the distinct difference between crafting a substantial counterargument or building up a strawman designed to be easily refuted. 

The strawman is a fallacy that does very little to support your own arguments, like if you made the counter argument, "well, you're basically saying no one can own a pet." The strawman you just constructed is not only false, but does very little to support your argument. It's a stronger argument to say that anyone can keep any pets, as long as it can be properly cared for and controlled. 

Last, answer the objections you outlined in the form of a rebuttal. A rebuttal is simply a statement of why a given point is wrong; in this case, the opposing argument. For example, you could say "making private tiger ownership illegal does not impinge on the Rights of citizens to own pets. Tigers are not bred to be pets. They are wild animals, and given their nature and their strength, they cannot be controlled in a way that ensures public safety." 

Also, through this process, acknowledge strong points made by the opposition. This is called making concessions. Here, you can make a concession to the opposition by conceding that it is possible to care well for tigers, keeping them well Fed and in good condition. But then you add, "that does not mean they can be properly cared for by everyday citizens or kept from doing harm, such as attacking their keepers or the public." 

By acknowledging the opposing views argument, you show that your open minded and willing to challenge your own beliefs. The strongest arguments can make concessions and use them to more accurately pick apart why the opposing view is wrong. 

If your argument isn't capable of withstanding well-constructed counterarguments, you may want to rethink your position. Many students are fearful of acknowledging counterarguments, but if your argument is strong enough, you can make substantial counterarguments work to your own advantage. 

And maybe think about adopting a cat instead of a tiger. For more information on arguments, check out the handouts on our website at writingcenter.tamu.edu. No, no! Oh. 

[MUSIC PLAYING]