Premise

Lots of students ask, “Do we need counterarguments?” That’s a good question when you have to write something like a research paper. And there’s some even better follow-up questions, like, “Why? And what types of counterarguments might be useful?”

There are actually several variants of “counterarguments” when we think of this consideration more broadly. Really, the idea here is that you want your reader/audience to know that you have taken into account all of the relevant considerations regarding an issue—as well as your argument as to what should be done about it.

Examples

Direct Counterarguments

Types of counterarguments might differ from one paper topic to another—and even within each paper. Direct counterarguments usually include somebody saying something in direct opposition to what you are arguing.

E.g., if you’re arguing that “the campus smoking policy should be enforced by campus security,” you might have to address those who argue against this particular point. E.g., “The university president has explicitly stated that she ‘[does] not think that the campus smoking policy needs to be enforced by campus security.’”

After identifying all of this, you can then point out why this opposing view is either flawed, incomplete, biased, etc. I.e., the reasons why what you are arguing outweighs this counterargument.

Indirect Counterarguments

There may also simply be alternate perspectives that happen to contradict your point(s). I.e., other research with data, arguments, or perspectives/findings that happen to contradict your findings. E.g., “Researchers at the World Health Organization have found that enforcing campus smoking policies doesn’t necessarily improve its effectiveness.”

In the example above, nobody is explicitly saying here not to enforce your particular campus’ smoking policy, but such credible evidence in looking at other and or similar universities does raise an “alternate perspective” on how the issue maybe should be considered and potentially addressed for your school too.

Then, you can point out how (while this might be true) this study is…

• limited in its researched focus in some way…
• doesn’t necessarily apply to your school’s particular situation given further considerations…
• doesn’t consider all the factors relevant to your specific researched situation…

With any of these options, you might need to do further research yourself to prove the efficacy of your own “counter” to these findings.

And remember, sometimes as you do research, some of these ideas that you uncover (or at least parts of them) might seem “better” than your own argument. In cases like these, students often ask, “What do I do when I find [good] evidence that contradicts my argument?” Again, if it’s solid, valid, and credible research, you certainly might not want to ignore it. And so instead, you can maybe address it by developing your proposed solution into an even more comprehensive one! Part of the purpose of research is to learn ourselves, and so remember, you don’t have to entirely agree or disagree with certain sources. Some might have some good ideas, evidence, and points that you can draw from while rejecting others aspects of it.

Alternative Solutions

There also may be alternate “solutions” to consider. These are particularly important—especially when you look for how and why an entity could take an action to do something different. E.g., why would a specific university decide to change a policy in one way as opposed to another?

E.g., “One solution can be seen at Cornell University where they increased campus awareness of their smoking ban through classes that teach…”

Or

E.g., “In contrast, at the University of Maryland, the administration simply decided to post flyers, reminding students of their policy…”

Obviously, you don’t want to include every example of what every university might do, but you want to think about those examples that seem like the most plausible, popular, cost-effective, and/or potentially effective based upon addressing the issue(s) that you are highlighting. Both or more examples of the examples above might have merit, but then, which one(s) would potentially be best for the specific situation you are researching and arguing about (i.e., in this case, your own university) given the student body makeup, administrative budget, current infrastructure, and other university-specific considerations?

Further Considerations

Further Considerations

Sometimes, your topic doesn’t raise any of the counterpoint types mentioned above, but whether or not it does, there should still be further considerations to address. These are concerns that are relevant to challenging the efficacy of your proposed solutions, arguments, etc.

For example, if your topic is about funding a new sports club on campus, you would want to consider the relevant concerns and considerations in implementing your idea. Think of this aspect of your research as almost like a “Feasibility Assessment.” These elements are difficult to speculate because they’re largely dictated by the specific situation of your proposed implementation (which will likely be different on a case-by-case basis). But some examples might include:

• Costs: could be several specific aspects to address like who and how would fund this
• Current infrastructure: readers will want to know if any current mechanisms exist to implement this idea. E.g., in the case of starting a club, is there a process already in place to do this? If not, who would need to take charge?
• Feasibility: assessing various aspects of actually doing this. E.g., how does this club address a need here at your school, and or how successful the club might be once it’s started in order to justify continuing to run it

Just take the first example of cost, and think about how this consideration might manifest within your paper. E.g., “The prime consideration for implementing this club might very well be the annual operational costs, which would first have to be calculated and submitted to the undergraduate student government council for review. And with their yearly budget of just 10,000 dollars already spread among 100 different clubs, it is reasonable to assume that they might have concerns about accepting yet another club proposal.”

Also note that you want to be careful to avoid “straw man fallacies.” What the heck’s a “straw man,” you ask? Well, it’s a man made out of straw (i.e., a fake one) who’s easy to “knock over.” We see them all the time in the real world conversations, arguments, and debates, yet they rarely yield a compelling point when you start to press on the credibility of the example.

E.g., “Lots of people say…” Really? How many? Who? Can you at least name/quote a few? Are there statistics to back these claims?

Another example often starts with a vague hypothetical. E.g., “Some might argue…” Sure, some might also argue that alien lizard spawn rule the Earth from their secret bunker inside our hollow moon. But does that mean that it’s true? Maybe, maybe not. But we sure as heck want more credible claims than this.

A much better introduction of these further considerations would come with intrinsically linking the consideration with the example. Take the statement “Some might argue…” and instead, specify with examples. E.g., “Some administrators might rightfully be concerned with the costs associated with implementing this type of new policy. In fact, the university president himself, admitted in his 2024 State of the University address that, ‘Any new initiatives will have to be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis, given our current financial situation…’”

How to Organize Counterarguments

There is no one “right” way to organize and order these counterarguments in your paper. They can either come:

• As you build your arguments (throughout the body of your paper), or
• After you’ve stated your arguments (so, later on in your paper)

One way to make this determination is to ask if it would seem “too repetitive” to address these points later on within the paper. If you have to bring up the same research that you cite and explain earlier on in your paper, then it could be better to address these counterpoints within the body, instead of saving them for later on.

Conversely, you might address some points within the body paragraphs so that they’re not repetitive, while saving some considerations of counterpoints for later on if they stand out to you as more unique, and would therefore sort of be “disruptive” to “throw in” while you’re trying to identify, analyze, assess the points of commentary and make arguments about them.

Again, counterpoints are not always clearly stating that what you are stating is wrong. Either way, you want to identify how these counterpoints are not as “valid” as your point(s)/argument(s) through one or more of the following methods. In general, decide if the counterpoints are (one or more of these assessments):

• invalid: which means they have either incorrect or erroneous factual information that you can prove through citing further valid sources.
• flawed/incomplete/non-applicable: which means they do not take into account other vital data, perspectives, other information, etc. Again, this assessment may be because what’s “right” for one situation might not be the best for another. Or there’s just other information that serves to outweigh these concerns and considerations.
• biased: which means they are opinion based rather than factually grounded, sometimes warping or presenting information through misinterpretation—or just having different values. You can consider the fact that different situations have parties with different goals. E.g., maybe in the example of an issue at your university, you realize that yours is a “science-focused” school. In general, they might have similar values to other institutions overall, but there might also be distinct perspectives and prioritizations in terms of what academic requirements, goals, and student life they emphasize. This assessment can all connect to the student body’s perspectives as well, and how different schools have very different populations when you start to break down the demographics of who actually attends them.