Strange. I always thought these "rules" were more comparible to necessities.

Reading Lazere's "ground rules" elbowed me into a realization: I have long been aware of his standards in evaluating the soundness of an argument. Unconsciously, I have used similar standards in analyzing both my own arguments, and those coming from others. For one reason or another, I have unknowingly considered the “ground rules” to be requisite to the concept of argument itself, thinking them to be necessary in order to feel satisfied with one’s own argument. It doesn’t make sense that someone would conclude that any of Lazere’s ideas are unreasonable because I perceive them as stemming from pure reason. They only seem logical; I see no reason to think that Lazere's ideas are anything but necessity. But some would feel that way. Some do feel that way. I wonder why anyone would try to argue something unreasonable?

With full awareness of the realities of demagogury--the intentional use of fallacious arguments, which can appear so sound to the person who lives in the fluidity and passion of the moment--we must consider why an argument is supported to begin with. Shouldn't someone feel confident that his/her argument is correct in order to argue it? Why would any rational animal support an argument that is not analyzed under these logical standards; standards that are nothing more than a rational "checklist" for one's own correctness? For reasons, I think, that fall outside of rationality.

Not every argument is to find the best outcome, or the right choice. Not every argument is vying for truth. Some arguments come from our own flaws--the thirst for power, the proclivity to satisfy one's own emotional wants, the need to feel right.

There are those who would reject Lazere's standards because of a distaste for relative truth. Some arguments can seem to have no compromise because of the appearance of absolute truth on either side. Absolute truth does not work well alongside of relative truth. Relative truth, after all, has the potential to destroy the solid infallibility of purist beacons such as the Ten Commandments. So why, one might argue, should someone who "knows" her/his argument is correct give any quarter to the opposition?

For the reason of our own human fallibility: we are not perfect, and to assume our arguments is an ironic representation of our imperfection. Lazere's ground rules have the high idea of rationality flowing through them; the concept of arguing while remaining ever conscious of the imperfections and fallacies that affect the human mind. That means actually listening to the opposition to find out if you have made a mistake. That means evaluating your own arguments and that bias that it brings. It means recognizing that, within your own faction, mistakes can be made & fallacies can be found.

I have a tendency to assume the ultimate goal of an argument is to be as correct as possible. The more I consider Lazere's ground rules for argumentation, the more I think that there's no other way to argue if one wishes to argue with credibility. Lazere's rules are a kind of rational proof to check for one's own correctness; a tool to account for the imperfections that humankind bring to their arguments. If you do not care whether your argument is correct or not, then reconsider why you are arguing to begin with. Your true motivation may not be very appealing to those whom you would try to convince.