A counterargument it’s a argument used as answer in front of another previous one. It is a reasoning that is the opposite of a preceding judgment.
It is often said that a counterargument, also accepted as counterargument, is a replica or a rebuttal. To the previous argument a new argument is opposed that allows a contrary reason to be used.
It is important to note that an argument does not have a single counterargument. The usual thing is that they exist multiple counterarguments which, in turn, may be compatible or contradictory to each other.
Take the case of discussions between members of the flat earth movement (who maintain that Land is flat) and the members of the scientific community (which ensure that the planet is spherical). Flat Earthers argue that Land is a flat surface that floats on the space, with the Moon and the Sun moving around her. Science, on the other hand, presents as a counter argument the evidence of the images captured by satellites and the foundations of the law of gravity to reject this belief.
Let us now see what happens with the controversy over the global warming. Among those who reject the existence of this trend, some present as an argument since there have been other periods in which the Land it got hot, so it would be a natural phenomenon. From the other side, it is postulated as a counterargument that these stages are linked to particular reasons such as upheavals of the Earth’s orbit or solar influence, issues that are incomparable to what the greenhouse gases produce that humans emit, with their daily activities. to the atmosphere.
In both cases, the topics to be discussed or debated are of a natural and scientific nature, for which reason it is expected that at some point in the discussion, a conclusion impossible to dispute. Let’s take once again the belief that our planet is flat and not spherical: the material evidence is unquestionable, so the counterargument leads us to close the discussion without the possibility of reopening it.
Of course, it is up to each of the parties to decide to accept the evidence against them and their failure, or to continue arguing endlessly out of simple stubbornness. In this particular case, precisely that is the case: the people who support this theory they deny the veracity of all the evidences that oppose it, claiming that they were manufactured by different organizations and governments to deceive the world population.
With regard to global warming, on the other hand, the situation is slightly different. Although the scientists who claim that it is a real and testable problem may be correct, given that the history of our planet is so extensive, we must respect the position of those who allege different reasons for the temperature changes. As the parameters to take into account are many, the counterargument is more complex than in the previous case.
If we look beyond the discussions themselves, we can say that the counterargument exists independently of who uses it, as a piece that allows balance to be achieved in any intellectual field. We must remember before continuing that its function is not always to completely oppose the argument expressed in the first place, but also to take it in a different direction or add information that leads to a new one. interpretation.
This means that presenting a counterargument is not as simple as saying “no”; It is not a capricious answer but a resource that often serves to verify the veracity of the above. It may be thanks to this contrast of ideas Let the most correct one come to light.