There are 6 arguments for which you will need to choose 2 and provide good, well thought out counter- arguments.

As preparation for the assignment, please read the following passage.

Counter-arguments:
A counter-argument attempts to show that our opponent's conclusion is false or problematic by constructing a different argument altogether to support a conclusion that is inconsistent with the original conclusion. For example:

ROY: The state must retain the right to apply the death penalty in extreme cases. I believe that any person who commits cold-blooded, premeditated murder is unfit to remain a member of any civilized community. By their act of denying another's right to life, they have renounced their own right to life, and the state is therefore entitled to put them to death.

DALE: The trouble with your position is that it brings the state down to the level of the murderer. If the right to life is so important, then don't you think the state ought to show how important it is by refusing to execute anyone, no matter how heinous his or her crime? The real question is whether you want to live in a society where the government from time to time kills some of its citizens.

Notice that Dale makes no attempt to challenge any of Roy's premises and does not even suggest that Roy's conclusion does not follow from his premises. In fact, she is actually in partial agreement with one of Roy's premises: that there is a right to life. But she ignores Roy's argument and attempts instead to show that the state ought not to inflict the death penalty by appealing to a different set of premises. Every genuine counter-argument has this feature: it ignores the premises of the original argument and presents an independent set of reasons in support of a contrary conclusion.

Every weak argument is therefore open to a counter-argument. In fact, counterarguments can often be developed against arguments whose weakness we are unable to identify. If we are presented with an argument whose conclusion we are reluctant to accept, there are two possible explanations for our reluctance: (a) the argument is weak, or (b) we are being irrational about the matter. If the argument really is weak, then we ought to be able to describe the weakness in such a way as to persuade our opponent. But if, as sometimes happens, we cannot do so, we would have to concede that our refusal to accept it may be irrational. In these circumstances it can be very useful to attempt to develop a counter-argument. If we can develop a plausible one, then we have a good reason to believe that our opponent's argument is weak and that we are not being irrational.

In addition, a good counter-argument can often suggest what is weak about the original argument. In the above example, Dale's counter-argument does suggest a line of attack on Roy's argument. Roy appeals to the fact that murderers have denied the right to life of their victims as a reason for claiming that murderers have renounced their own right to life. Dale's argument relies on the premise that the right to life cannot be lost by anyone, which suggests a way of attacking this sub-argument: she could argue that it violates the criterion of adequacy. We do not as a rule hold that, if lates some right of B's, the state should deny A the same right; that if I, for example, violate your freedom of religion, the state should force me to become a Baptist. Consequently, Roy's sub-argument needs more support in order to be acceptable.

To develop good counter-arguments we have to be familiar with the subject under discussion, and we have to care about the issue as well. Counter-arguments cannot be developed merely as a reaction against an argument that looks weak. There are no logical rules for producing a good counter-argument. We have to be sceptical about our opponent's conclusion, which means we should have reasons for our scepticism. It is only on the basis of the reasons that lead us to be sceptical that we can develop a good counter-argument.

Counter-arguments are often found in debates over controversial issues. In fact, in controversial contexts we can most easily see the chief drawback to the method of counter-argument. We are all aware that in debates over controversial matters both sides often seem to pay no attention to the arguments of the other side. Both sides seem content to repeat, over and over again, their arguments, all the while ignoring the arguments of their opponents. To avoid such behaviour, we should use counter-arguments not as an excuse to stop thinking rationally about the issue but as a useful tool for carrying forward a rational enquiry. Not only can they suggest weaknesses in our opponents' arguments, but they can give us a better understanding of the issue. A serious attempt to develop a counter-argument against a given argument, and then to examine the two as dispassionately as we can, will give us a deeper understanding of any complex issue.

The Arguments
Suggest a plausible counter-argument against any 2 of the following 6 arguments:

1. The capitalist economic system is superior to any other system. Western civilization has advanced more since capitalism emerged in the late seventeenth century than in the previous 2,000 years, and these advances could not have occurred except for the tremendous explosion of productivity brought about by capitalism. It may not be perfect, but it is clearly superior to all its rivals.

2. Parliament committed a serious blunder in 1967 when it removed attempted suicide from the Criminal Code. Until then it had been a criminal offence for anyone to attempt to commit suicide. The value of the old law was not that it made it possible for the courts to punish those who were so disturbed or depressed that they wanted to end their lives. Its value was that it gave the police the right to apprehend someone who was threatening to take his or her own life. The way things are now, if the police find someone threatening suicide, they cannot interfere, for the person is doing nothing illegal. And since most people who threaten suicide are really pleading for help, we should have a law that permits the police to interfere first and ask questions later.

3. Teachers in primary and secondary schools should avoid introducing any controversial political or ethical issues into the classroom. Such discussions tend to be divisive and to create friction among students. They lead many parents to feel that the school is subverting their authority as parents. And they allow teachers to abuse their authority and to impose their values upon their students.

4. Each year, Maclean's magazine publishes a ranking of Canadian universities. One of the criteria used is the grade average of students entering first year. This is an absurd criterion when used as a basis for determining the quality of a university. It is like determining the quality of a judge on the basis of the seriousness of the cases heard by him or her. The quality of a university should depend not on the quality of entering students, but on what happens to them after they arrive.

5. Most Western governments are willing to negotiate with terrorists to obtain the release of hostages or to achieve other goals. This is an ill-advised policy. What governments should do is to announce that their policy will always be to refuse to negotiate with terrorists under any circumstances and then to adhere rigorously to this policy. They should inform all their citizens that this is their new policy and that those who travel abroad should not expect the government to negotiate for their release should they be taken hostage by terrorists. Once terrorist groups realized that a government was serious about its refusal to negotiate under any circumstances, they would realize that their terrorist acts were useless or even counter- productive. They would be forced to cease their terrorist acts, and fewer people would suffer as a result.

6. Government spending on the arts is wasteful and should be abolished. If some particular artists or poets or singers are recognized as good by enough of the public, they will be able to make a decent living by selling their books or giving concerts, in which case they don't need government hand-outs. But if they can't make a decent living it must be because not enough people think they are good enough to buy their books or go to their concerts. In this case, there is no justification for subsidizing artists who are regarded by Canadians as second best. So all support programs for the arts should be eliminated.