The pitfalls of a counter-argument
From time to time, most organisations are faced with the need to weigh in on a debate. Whether countering false assertions, navigating market shifts or shaping emerging public policies, there are crossroads of discourse where engaging becomes necessary to safeguard integrity, maintain credibility and drive positive change.
When entering the fray on contentious issues, a strong position that has purpose and resonates with your audience needs to be established up front. At the same time, it’s important to assess opposing points of view and shape compelling counter-arguments.
A recent example of this done poorly comes courtesy of 2024’s American Presidential race.
In painting a picture of President Biden, the opposition’s counter-argument to his re-election has revolved around the idea that he’s a diminished, elderly man with no grasp of the job.
It also revolves around Biden being a conniving force using the levers of government to silence his opponents, make himself and his family rich, and alter America’s way of life.
An NBC News piece from September 2023 pointed to a social media post from that week in which former-President Trump wrote: “These Indictments and lawsuits are all part of my political opponent's campaign plan. It is Election Interference, and they are going to use the DOJ/FBI to help them, which is illegal. Crooked Joe pushed this litigation hard to get it done. This is a new low in Presidential Politics.”
The same piece cited contradictory comments from Trump in an interview just the week prior: “…I don’t think he’s going to make it to the gate, but you never know. I think he’s worse mentally than he is physically. And physically, he’s not exactly a triathlete or any kind of an athlete. You look at him, he can’t walk to the helicopter. He walks — he can’t lift his feet out of the grass.”
So, which one is it? “Sleepy Joe”, the bumbling old man, or “Crooked Joe”, the evil genius manipulating the justice system?
For ardent Trump supporters, these conflicting messages might not matter much. But, the upcoming US election is said to hang in the balance, poised to be decided by slim margins among undecided voters in the suburbs of Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Phoenix.
Using this battleground as an example, a clear articulation of your stance alongside a compelling critique of the opposition is crucial. Any hint of inconsistency or confusion could let your grasp on an audience slip. In this case, it could literally be the deciding factor for voters on election day.
It goes without saying that a counter-argument shouldn’t contradict itself. This might be a high-profile example, but it’s relatable to any number of situations a business, non profit or government agency faces in advocating a position and advancing its goals.
It's essential to take the time to formulate arguments, prioritise, dissect and stress test them. Debates can be emotional and passionate, hindering your ability to stay on message and flag inconsistency. Even more reason to think it all through and stick to it from the outset.
A native of the United States, Jeff has more than 20 years of international experience delivering communications solutions for business, government and not-for-profits. Jeff previously led a Chicago-based public affairs consultancy, served as a political advisor in the Wisconsin State Senate, and as a political director for the Democratic Leadership Council.
