As an LSAT instructor, I teach argument for a living, and because of that, I’ve become the most annoying Facebook friend ever. Rather than just jumping right into the NFL national anthem controversy, I’ve decided to use this issue as a test case for how to argue properly. This post is the second in a series, so if you’d like more background on the NFL national anthem debate, click here.

Every argument can be boiled down to two main parts: a conclusion backed by evidence. Take these frequent examples from recent debates:

Example #1:
Conclusion: Colin Kaepernick’s actions are disrespectful.
Evidence: Refusing to stand during the national anthem is disrespectful, and Colin Kaepernick refused to stand during the national anthem.

Example #2:
Conclusion: Colin Kaepernick’s actions are heroic.
Evidence: Advocating on behalf of others and risking your reputation are both heroic actions, and Colin Kaepernick risked his reputation to advocate for others.

Both of these arguments represent valid chains of thought based on commonly accepted information. Notice how they don’t even necessarily contradict each other. The problem lies in what we call “assumptions.” An assumption is any essential part of the argument that’s been left unstated. For example, we haven’t stated that you can’t be a hero if you’re disrespectful, yet that highly disputed assumption is lurking under much of the debate surrounding the NFL. Shifting topics a little, here’s another example of an argument that hinges on an assumption:

Conclusion: The NFL should fire players who kneel during the national anthem.
Evidence: The President said so.

Notice the unstated assumption required for this argument to work: The NFL should do what the President says. This style of argument is called an “appeal to authority,” but does the President’s authority extend to the NFL? If yes, then the assumption is valid, and we can accept the argument. If not, the assumption is faulty, so we label it a “flaw” and reject the argument. There are many types of flaws: failure to consider an overlooked possibility, confusing two terms that have different meanings, assuming two events are related because they happen at the same time, etc. While we won’t examine every flaw type over this next week, we’ll dive deeper into several that pop up on a regular basis.

Back to whether the NFL should do what the President says, well, it’s hard to say. The teams are private tax-paying entities composed of private tax-paying citizens, and since giving up their controversial nonprofit status in 2015, the League office is now a private entity as well. So long as they aren’t actively threatening violence or violating other laws, the League and its players can do what they want, and other than reduced profits due to fan backlash, there’s really no potential consequence. The NFL is under no legal obligation to do what the President says, but should they? Well, it comes down to your opinion about the President.

One of the things that has bothered me about this whole debate is how the original intention has been so easily obscured. Notice how the argument above had very little to do with police brutality, racism, or the flag; it was about the President, and that’s a problem. Unfortunately, America’s President is a very divisive figure right now— even more so than Kaepernick. Because of this, we now have to enter every discussion around this issue with two questions to help us understand others’ views:

1: What is this person actually arguing?
That is, which of the particular issues (Black Lives Matter, the President, respect for military, etc.) is this person focusing on? What is his or her ultimate conclusion, and what evidence supports that conclusion?

2: What assumptions lurk underneath the argument?
What has been left unsaid about the President, the NFL, police brutality, the national anthem, and how they’re linked? What must be assumed for the argument to make sense? Are these assumptions valid, or are they flawed?

Keep these terms in mind: conclusion, evidence, assumption, and flaw. We’re going to see them again. Next time, we’ll talk about the difficulty of definitions and all the chaos that can erupt because words have multiple meanings!