Using Antutocratic Laws Against Anti-Social Behavior

One of my favorite things in life is when I get to work and put together a good report or argument and then I let it run counter to itself that is, it goes for the opposite of what I had planned. For example, "That was not my study group, so how can it be relevant to me?" Or "I did not see any point in looking at dinosaurs when the rest of my class was discussing herbivores and how they relate to us." These types of scenarios get me thinking about how to organize my arguments so that I can use them in support of my own thesis, or work proposal, or research project.


I recently learned that an organization that I work for does just that: Argue the Opposite. Their motto is "We argue our way to the same results". How is that different from saying, "we promote prescription drugs". And what is the "same results"?

The answer is that in the first case, you are working to prevent violence by pointing out the negative aspects of various actions. In the second case, you are working to promote prescription drugs by pointing out the positive aspects. Both are worthy goals. But which do you think is more likely to accomplish your goals? In the case of promoting prescription drugs, it appears that Argue the Opposite is the more likely course of action.

Consider this example. If the American Cancer Society has a working thesis that says that inhaling air pollution is bad for your health, then a business that markets lung cancer inhalers is doing exactly what the working thesis says. But if the working thesis is that computers are good for your health, then would it make sense for the computer companies to advertise their computers as good for health? It doesn't make sense! In each case, the business in question is doing exactly what it is required to do by the current legislation, but they are doing it in an apparently illegal manner.

Now consider another example. Suppose that there was a working thesis like "don't confuse the working thesis like the anti-smoking slogan," which could be easily demonstrated to have some validity. If that business was to make a commercial about that particular working thesis, then it might easily be considered legal. However, it is unlikely that any business would ever start to market something like that as a marketing strategy.

Now consider another potential situation where the antithetical arguments are true, but the laws against them are not so good. Suppose that there are computer hackers who target medical or insurance companies. How can the working thesis like "do not confuse the working thesis with the anti-smoking slogan" be applied here? Well, obviously, the computer hackers are committing serious crimes.

So, if you really want to know what the law against what you are saying is, it would be much more useful to try to Argue the Opposite to prove that your argument is correct and therefore, that the law does not apply. This way, you can show your potential readers that your working thesis is correct and therefore, the law does not apply. It is much more interesting to read a paper and learn that somebody has already worked out an answer for a question than to spend five minutes reading the research process paper and then realizing that the answer is already obvious.

Of course, it might also be possible to Argue the Opposite to say something like "the law might make sense if drug companies were allowed to advertise prescription drugs on TV." This might make sense to a few people, but I doubt that it would be of interest to most. The point is that the point of arguing with the other person is to find out whether their argument has any merit. You might think that an argument has no merit, but you have to determine whether it actually has merit based upon how the person is responding with their argument reacts when you make a counter-claim. If they respond in kind and the other person makes a negative comment about your argument, then you know for sure that your position is correct and that the law against what you are saying makes sense.