In academic philosophy, an “argument” is a series of claims, called premises, intended to logically support another claim, called the conclusion. Sometimes rather than providing an actual argument, people will simply articulate an unfounded opinion, sometimes emphasizing how strongly they hold it (as if that somehow strengthens its plausibility or gives us objective reason to accept it).
For example:
“It is my strong belief that abortion is wrong except in cases to save the mother’s life. I have believed this since I was young, and it seems obviously true – something even a child could appreciate. How could a moral person support the killing of an innocent baby? They couldn’t, and anyone who does is clearly evil.”
Contrast that with a similar view backed by an actual argument (and absent the inflammatory language):
“Abortions for reasons other than to save the mother’s life are unethical because the Unborn Developing Human, while not yet fully possessing the capacities of personhood (ability to feel pleasure and pain, ability to engage in relationships, ability to engage in higher reason and use it to develop and execute a life plan) is alive (growing, responding to stimuli) and possesses a genetic code that will enable it to develop into a full person, as well as a fully functioning member of the moral community.”
While the above passages share the same conclusion – that abortions are wrong except when necessary to save the mother’s life – the first doesn’t provide any compelling, rational reasons to support that view. It asks rhetorical questions, explains how long the author has held this view, and calls people who disagree mean names. But it doesn’t offer reasons, logically arranged, to support a conclusion.
The second passage, on the other hand, makes the case that abortions other than to save the life of the mother are immoral because (“because” is a premise indicator) the Unborn Developing Human (or baby/fetus if you prefer) will become a full person, and a full member of the moral community if allowed to grow and develop. Therefore, while aborting a UDH wouldn’t terminate an actualized person, it would terminate a potential person, which this author implies is morally wrong.
They’d do well to further explore why this would be wrong, to concede that UDHs are not actual persons (yet), and to argue why killing a potential person would be so wrong as to override all reasons a pregnant woman might have interest in aborting, beginning with pregnancies that are the result of rape. But we consider this brief argument here simply to show what an actual argument looks like contrasted with an emotionally laden opinion.
To the extent that your team offers arguments rather than mere opinions, you’ll help advance our collective understanding of the issue, and do better in ethics bowl.