Brooks
New member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2026
- Messages
- 11
I used to avoid counterarguments like the plague. 
Why would I bring up opposing views in my own paper?? That's just giving my professor reasons to take points off, right?? I thought the goal was to build the strongest possible case for MY side and ignore everything else.
Turns out that's exactly wrong and I'm an idiot.
My debate team friend explained it to me: addressing counterarguments actually makes YOUR argument stronger. It shows you've thought about the complexity of the issue. It demonstrates that you understand the opposing view well enough to refute it. It makes you look confident instead of defensive.
Now I actively seek out counterarguments and it's become one of my go-to essentials in writing strategies.
Here's my formula:
"Critics argue that UBI is too expensive and disincentivizes work. While implementation costs are certainly a concern, studies from pilot programs in Finland and Kenya show minimal impact on employment rates. Moreover, the long-term savings on welfare administration and healthcare could offset initial investments. Thus, while the critique raises valid budgetary questions, the evidence suggests UBI's benefits outweigh its costs."
See what happened there?? I didn't just dismiss the critics. I engaged with them honestly, then showed why my position still stands. The paper felt smarter. More mature. Less like a rant and more like an actual academic conversation.
The trick is to put counterarguments in their own paragraph (or at least a substantial chunk of one). Give them room to breathe before you respond. And always, ALWAYS treat opposing views with respect. Strawman arguments (misrepresenting the other side to make them easier to attack) are obvious and annoying.
Anyone else incorporate counterarguments?? How do you find good ones without going down a research rabbit hole??
Refutation nation rise up.
Why would I bring up opposing views in my own paper?? That's just giving my professor reasons to take points off, right?? I thought the goal was to build the strongest possible case for MY side and ignore everything else.
Turns out that's exactly wrong and I'm an idiot.
My debate team friend explained it to me: addressing counterarguments actually makes YOUR argument stronger. It shows you've thought about the complexity of the issue. It demonstrates that you understand the opposing view well enough to refute it. It makes you look confident instead of defensive.
Now I actively seek out counterarguments and it's become one of my go-to essentials in writing strategies.
Here's my formula:
- Acknowledge the opposing view fairly (don't misrepresent it)
- Concede any valid points (shows good faith)
- Refute the rest with stronger evidence
- Show why your argument still holds up
"Critics argue that UBI is too expensive and disincentivizes work. While implementation costs are certainly a concern, studies from pilot programs in Finland and Kenya show minimal impact on employment rates. Moreover, the long-term savings on welfare administration and healthcare could offset initial investments. Thus, while the critique raises valid budgetary questions, the evidence suggests UBI's benefits outweigh its costs."
See what happened there?? I didn't just dismiss the critics. I engaged with them honestly, then showed why my position still stands. The paper felt smarter. More mature. Less like a rant and more like an actual academic conversation.
The trick is to put counterarguments in their own paragraph (or at least a substantial chunk of one). Give them room to breathe before you respond. And always, ALWAYS treat opposing views with respect. Strawman arguments (misrepresenting the other side to make them easier to attack) are obvious and annoying.
Anyone else incorporate counterarguments?? How do you find good ones without going down a research rabbit hole??
Refutation nation rise up.