License to Argue

We believe a person becomes qualified to argue a point when they demonstrate their ability to articulate the opposing point of view with depth, such that their representation of it does justice to its merits and underlying values.

Tusk & Quill’s Discourse segment features arguments for how things ‘ought’ to be, from the perspectives of our writers. Our aim is to ultimately build a space where multiple perspectives are represented across multiple articles around single topics, providing the reader access to a range of compelling considerations for the debates that weigh on their mind and offering a more reliable path towards synthesis.

In the spirit of earnest inquiry and orientation towards synthesis, we require that our writers demonstrate a sincere attempt consider the opposing points of view, absorb the merits of those points into their own argument, and empathize with the underlying values from which the disagreements emerge. This process tends to result in arguments and policy proposals that are less self-absorbed, with a more refined logic, and more practical / actionable by a larger group of people.

Our writers submit a supplementary write-up, which is posted at the beginning of their main argument piece. This gives readers a chance to gauge the writer’s understanding of the topic and the sincerity with which they have approached the subject.

This is the writer’s opportunity to take their best shot at demonstrating to their readers that they are fit to make their argument.

The idea draws inspiration from a long tradition of epistemological tools that have sought to design debates to be inherently truth- and welfare-seeking.

In ancient Indic debates, known as shaastrarth, there was a similar tradition called purva paksha, which translates to “the previous position.” In an idealized form of this debate, each participant was expected to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the prior position presented by the opponent, to the extent that their opponent was satisfied and felt well-represented, and then build their response argument from it by adding to, removing, reprioritizing, etc. the elements of the prior argument.

The idea of steelman-ing has become popular in modern intellectual circles. To ‘steelman’ an opponent’s point of view, is to understand it in its strongest and most defensible form. If you can disprove the argument, or even reveal one of its blind spots, while in that form, you’ve won a true, laudable intellectual victory.

Ultimately, we believe discourse shaped by this simple (yet difficult) practice can result in arguments that are rich, valuable and impactful - both for the writers themselves, and the readers who encounter their thought process.

If there’s an issue you care about, we encourage you to give this a shot! Send us a pitch at editorialboard@tuskandquill.org.