Pick the Strongest Claim

Minutes

When faced with a pile of arguments, ask the other side to name their single best one, or choose it yourself, and examine that one thoroughly, instead of chasing every point or knocking down only the weakest.

How to do it

  1. 1Say openly that you cannot address everything in the time available, and ask: "Which of those do you consider the strongest? Let us take that one properly."
  2. 2If they will not choose, choose for them, and choose fairly: the point a well-informed supporter of their view would lead with, not the easiest one to refute.
  3. 3Restate it in a form they would endorse before you respond. If they say "that is not quite it", let them fix it.
  4. 4Examine it fully: the evidence, the inference, the exceptions. Reach a result on it, even if the result is "that point stands".
  5. 5If the best argument fails, say what follows: a pile of weaker arguments does not add up to a strong one unless they are independent and each carries some real weight. If it succeeds, update.
  6. 6Apply the same discipline to your own case. Lead with your one or two best arguments and leave the marginal ones out; weak additions dilute strong points.

What to say

  • “There is a lot there. If you had to rest your case on one of those, which would it be?”
  • “Let me make sure I have your best point right before I respond to it.”

When to use it

  • •Someone produces a long list of claims faster than they can be checked.
  • •You catch yourself rebutting the silliest thing the other side has said.
  • •Time is limited (an interview, a meeting, a comment thread) and you have to decide what to engage.
  • •You are drafting an argument and are tempted to include every supporting point you can think of.

Counters

Gish GallopSpreading (Speed as Denial of Engagement)Firehose of FalsehoodFlooding the ZoneTime-Suck ArgumentsNutpickingStraw ManCard StackingCherry PickingSea LioningCognitive OverloadProof by AssertionChewbacca Defense

Evidence and how strong it is

Two lines of support converge. The first is normative: engaging the strongest version of an opposing case is a long-standing standard of fair argument, stated in Dennett's (2013) presentation of Rapoport's rules (restate the other position so well that its holder approves before you criticize it) and in the principle of charity. The second is empirical: adding weak or irrelevant material makes a case less persuasive, not more. Nisbett, Zukier and Lemley (1981) showed that non-diagnostic information dilutes the impact of diagnostic information on judgment, and the elaboration-likelihood research found that when people scrutinize content, weak arguments actively reduce persuasion, while sheer quantity persuades only inattentive audiences (Petty & Cacioppo 1984). The argument-flooding tactic depends on the asymmetry that a claim takes seconds to make and minutes to refute; asking for the strongest claim refuses that exchange rate without ignoring the other side. No study tests this conversational move directly. Evidence strength: normative consensus plus good experimental support for the dilution logic; the technique itself is untested practitioner advice.

Cautions
  • Refuting one argument, even the best one offered, does not refute the conclusion. There may be a better argument the speaker did not think of.
  • Some cases are legitimately cumulative: many independent, modest pieces of evidence can jointly be strong, as in medicine, history, or a circumstantial legal case. Do not use this rule to dismiss convergent evidence; ask whether the pieces are independent.
  • A person arguing in bad faith will decline to choose or will switch to another point once their first choice fails. Name that once and stop; the audience will see it.
  • Choosing on their behalf is a temptation to choose a weak one. If the point you picked was easy to beat, you probably picked wrong.
  1. Dennett, D. C. (2013). Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. W. W. Norton
    The statement of Rapoport's rules for criticizing fairly, beginning with restating the opposing position to its holder's satisfaction.
  2. Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 248-277
    Experimental evidence that adding irrelevant information weakens the effect of relevant information on judgment.
  3. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69-81
    Evidence that argument quantity persuades low-involvement audiences while argument quality governs high-involvement audiences.
Last reviewed

More in Debate and argument

Argument Mapping

Draw the argument as a diagram, with the main claim at the top, the reasons for and objections against it beneath, and the support for each of those beneath them, so that gaps, repetition, and unsupported leaps become visible instead of being carried along by fluent prose.

The Toulmin Check

Test any single argument by asking Toulmin's six questions of it: what is the claim, what are the grounds, what warrant connects them, what backs the warrant, how strongly is the claim qualified, and under what conditions would it fail?

Fallacy Audit of Your Own Case

Before you publish, present, or press an argument, go through it as a hostile reader would, looking for the fallacies and statistical shortcuts you would attack in an opponent, and fix or cut what you find.

Flow the Argument

Borrow the competitive debater's note-taking method: write each of the other side's points in a column as they are made, put the responses beside them, and look at what is left unanswered, so that volume and speed cannot substitute for substance.

Pin the Bailey

When a position seems to change size depending on whether it is being advanced or defended, write down the bold version and the modest version side by side and ask which one is being claimed, so the speaker cannot enjoy the conclusions of one and the defensibility of the other.

State Your Position First

Before engaging with objections, questions, or someone else's summary of your view, say in one or two plain sentences what you actually hold and what you do not, so that the discussion is about your position and not a version built for you.