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 singular topics, providing the reader access to a range of compelling considerations for the debates that weigh on their mind, 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 to consider the opposing points of view, absorbing the merits of those points into their own argument where they deem appropriate. This process tends to result in arguments and policy proposals that are more broad-minded, nuanced, and actionable by a larger group of people.

Our writers submit a supplementary write-up, arguing from an opposing position to their own, 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 their opponent’s position to prove their qualification.

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—it’s a valuable growth experience. Send us a pitch at editorialboard@tuskandquill.org.