We received a wonderful pair of arguments from a foreign language high school in South Korea. One of the groups argued that smartphones should be banned in class, and the others argued that it shouldn't. So we can look at how they conflict with each other, and what we need to do about that. So the first argument, which is try to show that smartphones should be banned during class, runs like this. Many students are using smartphones during class, and this causes many problems. That kind of sets it up. That's what the problem is. But why? Well, they are a lot of addictive apps like, social networking and games that make students check their smartphones continuously. I assume they're talking about checking them continuously during class. And it's probably not really continuously. Like, not all the time. But way too often. I know just what they're talking about, happens in my classes. Checking smartphones frequently prevents students from concentrating in class. Now, that tells you what the problem is. There's nothing wrong with smartphones in themselves, if you can do that and still get something out of the class. But if it prevents students from concentrating in class, that's a problem. Cause that's what the class is for. So the students can learn. And notice they don't say other students. It's also the person using the smartphone. They're both distracted. They're both prevented from concentrating in class. That's a problem. Next, behaviors that prevent students from concentrating during class, should be banned. We just found out that smartphones do that. Therefore, smartphones should be banned during class. Sounds pretty good. Of course, there are questions you could raise. But notice it, the fact that the apps are addictive. That explains why once you've got them on your phone. You can't stop yourself from using them. And you're going to use them even in class, when you know you shouldn't. Right? You know you should only use them outside of class, but you end up abusing them inside class cause you're addicted. It also says, behaviors that prevent students from concentrating in class should be banned. Eh, you could base questions about that. Right? Because things like hey going to the bathroom. Going to the bathroom during class might stop other students from concentrating, learning quite as much, but, you gotta go, you gotta go. And so, we have to allow those. So you might want to ask the qualifications about these are activities that distract other students that aren't really necessary and doing this smart phoning during class is probably not really necessary. It doesn't contribute to anybody's educational experience. So, you can fix it up a little bit. But what I want to focus on instead of trying to fix up every little detail like that, is the structure. The two main steps, in this argument. First, there are a lot of addictive applications or apps. If there are lots of apps then if smartphones are not banned students will check their Smartphones frequently. So if they're not banned students are going to check them. Then if students check their smartphones frequently then students are going to be prevented from concentrating. Therefore, if they're not banned students are going to be prevented from concentrating. And if not, banning something results in students being prevented from concentrating, then the schools ought to ban them because after all the point of the school is education, and that's standing in the way. Therefore, smartphones should be banned during class. So now we've got a reconstruction. Where the steps are valid and the only point I want to make for now is that it's got a certain kind of structure. Is it a linear structure? Or is it a branching structure? Or is it a joint structure? It's a linear structure. Because the conclusion of the first bit. Namely number three, if smart phones are not banned during class then the students will check their smartphones frequently in class becomes a premise in the next step. Which leads to the conclusion five which becomes a premise in the argument for the final conclusion seven. So this is a linear structure. Now, let's look at the argument on the other side. The other group of high school students from the same high school in South Korea argued for the opposite conclusion, that smartphones should be allowed in class. Of course, if they're allowed, they're not banned. So, they're disagreeing with their schoolmates. And here's their argument. Many people say that smartphones should be banned in schools, but they shouldn't. Smartphones have apps that help you study, such as dictionaries for foreign languages, and these students are in a foreign language high school so that's important. I believe that anything that can help students learn should be allowed in schools. Anything that can help students learn should be allowed in school. Additionally, banning smartphones can result in lack of ways for students to communicate during emergencies. Just imagine there's an emergency and you can't tell the other students that there is an emergency. People might get stuck in the school. They might not know that they need to leave. And that could lead to real problems. So because smartphones, can help students study. And because they can help them in emergency situations. communicate in emergency situations. Smartphones should be allowed, not banned in schools and classrooms. Now again, there are lots of questions you could raise. How often do these emergencies happen? Maybe communicating on the smartphone during an emergency is going to make you go more slowly and not able to escape. And so having the smartphone available will actually create more deaths or injuries during an emergency. And maybe using this dictionary on your smart phone during class, which seems to be helping you. Is actually stopping you from learning the language yourself. You're now dependent on the smartphone, and it might get in the way of language learning. So I think you could raise a lot of questions about this argument, just like the other one, but what I'm interested in here is the structure. So let's look at that. Notice that word additionally in the middle of their argument. That signals that they're really two arguments here. One is that smartphones can help students learn. And here I'm simplifying quite a bit a bit. Smartphones can help students learn, and then anything that can help students learn should be allowed in school. Therefore, smartphones should be allowed in school. That's the first argument. First reason to allow smartphones is that they can aid in education, and that's what schools are all about. So they should be allowed. Notice the second one, is completely independent. Smartphones can help students communicate during emergencies. Anything that can help students communicate during emergencies should be allowed in school, therefore smart phones should be allowed in schools. They're separate arguments because the second argument would also apply in offices, it should, would apply to students when they're taking exams, where they're not supposed to be getting information from dictionaries or any other information from their smartphone. There still might be an emergency. And so the different arguments apply to different circumstances, but they lead to the same conclusion, that smartphones should be allowed in schools. So what kind of structure do we have here? Do we have a linear structure, or a branching structure, or a joint structure? We have a branching structure. Because both sets of premises support the same conclusion. Now, I want to ask one more question. Does that mean that this argument's better than the first one. Hey, these guys have two arguments. The other group only had one argument. That's gotta be better, right? No. It might seem better, because if one argument fails you've got the other one left over. But, of course, if one argument is stronger than either of the other two put together, the first group still might have a better reason for their conclusion. So you can't just count the number of arguments to figure out who's winning in a disagreement like this. And the second point I want to make is that we ought to be looking for compromises. When you get a conflict like this between two groups, one wants cell phones banned, one wants smartphones allowed. Well, what the arguments do is they tell us the values at stake, what you really want from the band. Or what you really want by allowing the smartphones. And what that tells you is how to compromise. What we want to find now is some way to pass a regulation. That'll allow students to use smartphones when they're really learning, like when they're using a foreign language dictionary. Or, when they really need it like in an emergency. But not so frequently that they're going to interrupt other students, because they're just going on a social network or playing some kind of game that they're addicted to. So how're we going to do a regulation like that? Well, maybe we could allow smartphones, but only if they don't have any of those apps on them that students are going to abuse and use too frequently. Or maybe, we're going to be able to monitor their smartphones to see whether they're going on to the right types of program. Dictionaries that help them learn, emergency conversations to help people in trouble. And not using them for the ones that are preventing other people from learning by distracting them. Now I don't know whether you can actually have a regulation like that. But one of the nice features of arguments is that they don't just tell you these people want smartphones, these people don't want smartphones banned. Right? Instead, it tells you the reasons why. And by learning those reasons we get a picture of what we need in order to formulate a regulation. It'll serve the interests of both groups because they both have a really good point.
