YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

Week 1 - 1.1.1 Argument vs non Arguments — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

Week 1 - 1.1.1 Argument vs non Arguments

Philosophy at Azim Premji University · 2,560 words · 13 min read · EN

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of Week 1 - 1.1.1 Argument vs non Arguments by Philosophy at Azim Premji University on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

Welcome to the second lecture but technically 1.1.1 that is unit one week 1 video one. Um we are now moving on from the introductory video to the real content for this unit. Make sure before you continue that you have a pen, a paper, however you take notes handy. I recommend pen and paper strongly uh cuz

you should be taking notes as you listen to this. You should pause. I will sometimes ask you to answer questions. So you should be able to do that. So if you're ready, let's get going. Okay. So remember, let's recap the definition of what an argument is, right? So an argument is a series of sentences where

some of these sentences, the premises are intended to justify the other sentence, the conclusion. The conclusion is what an argument is trying to get you to believe as being true. And the premises are what justify it. And we're going to get lots and lots of examples. So don't worry if you're still not

seeing what this is. Um let's watch a little video. Now the question is um is there an argument here? Is this the right one for an argument? I've told you once. No, you haven't. Yes, I have. When? Just now. No, you didn't. Yes, I did. You didn't. You didn't. I'm telling you I did.

You did not. Oh, I'm sorry. Is this a 5minute argument or the full half hour? Oh. Oh, just a 5minute one. Fine. Thank you. Anyway, I did. You most certainly did not. Now, let's get one thing quite clear. I most definitely told you. You did not. Yes, I did. You did not. Yes, I did. Didn't.

Yes, I did. Didn't. Yes, I do. No, this isn't an argument. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. It's just contradiction. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. It is not. It is. You just contradicted me. No, I didn't. Oh, you did. No, no, no, no, no, no. You did just then. No, no, nonsense.

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimited

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

Oh, look. This is futile. No, it isn't. I came here for a good argument. No, you didn't. You came here for an argument. Well, an argument is not the same as contradiction. Can be. No, it can't. An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. It isn't just contradiction.

Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contary position. But it isn't just saying no, it isn't. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic game saying of anything the other person says. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Not at all. No, look,

thank you. Morning. What? That's it. Morning. I was just getting interested. Sorry, the 5 minutes is up. That was never 5 minutes just now. I'm afraid it was. No, it wasn't. Sorry, I'm not allowed to argue anymore. What? If you want me to go on arguing, I'll have to pay for another 5 minutes.

But that was never 5 minutes just now. Oh, come on. This is ridiculous. I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you pay. Oh, all right. There you are. Thank you. Well, well, what? That was never 5 minutes just now. Told you I'm not allowed to argue unless

you paid. I just paid. No, you didn't. I did. I did. I did. No, I don't want to argue about that. Well, I'm very sorry, but you didn't pay. Aha. Well, if I didn't pay, why are you arguing? Gotcha. No, you haven't. I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid. Not necessarily. I could be arguing in

my spare time. I've had enough of this. There you have it. Oh, shut up. Okay. So, the answer is no and yes. Um when they're just shouting back and forth, right? No, I didn't. Yes, you did. There's no argument as they say themselves. It's the kind of thing that amuses um children. If you know any

kids, you know, they love the whole no I didn't. Yes, you did. Yes, you know. So, it's it's that it's not really an argument. It's just denying what the other person is saying. mere contradiction. Um towards the end though, the client wants to insist that he paid and after a few angry repeated

assertions that he did, he did. He whips out an argument. He says, "If you're arguing with me, then I've paid. You're arguing with me, so I've paid." We even get a counterargument when the clinician denies the claim if he's arguing it's because he's been paid by saying that sometimes he argues in his spare time.

So there are times when he does argue without being paid. So the initial premise of the client is mistaken as false. So here's one kind of very common thing that's not an argument though this video does kind of give us that and that is a repeated assertion or a claim that doesn't actually give the interlocutor

any reason to believe what the conclusion is. So if you go back to Norris Priam's video from the introductory lecture where he says this is what they should have done but he never says why they should have done it. It's a nice example of this kind of non-argument. You can be as eloquent as

you want as passionate as you want by saying this is what should be done or this is the truth or here. But if you don't give reasons you're not offering an argument. You're just saying the same thing again and again in different language. Okay. So repeated assertions are not arguments. All right, this is the first

pit on an argument. Um also this video shows um sometimes we we call fights arguments. We talk about arguments in this course in general and in in in public reasoning. Um we're not just talking about fights. I'm not denying this this standardly colloquial usage of the word argument. I'm just saying for our purposes that's not what we mean by

an argument. Okay. All right. Um, let's look at this tweet. So, pause and read this. I'm not going to read I'm not going to read. So, in general, I'm not going to read stuff that's on the slides. It's a waste of your time. Um, you can read just as well as I can, but

please pause when you have text heavy slides. Read those slides and then carry on. Okay. So, this is well, so what's happening here is a strong opinions being expressed, right? But there's just a claim, a conclusion without any reasons being given for why we should believe it. Remember, in an argument, we must be saying something

and giving anyone listening to us, reading us, watching us reasons to believe that something. So in this case, we could imagine some extra steps steps that would make it an argument. We need premises like if we give power to people who don't believe in science, they'll make bad decisions. We shouldn't give p

power to people who make bad decisions. So we shouldn't give power to people who don't believe in science. But this is the work I have just done. And we often supply these missing reasons if you're being charitable. And more on that later, which is great. But for the purposes of this course, let's just

first figure out where there is or isn't an explicit argument. And in this case, the argument is as it were missing. Okay. So all right. So um the expression of an opinion um is not an argument. Um but then how about this one? So here you might say there's an opinion being expressed. Are you telling me there

isn't an argument? Uh cuz I mean this guy Rajat Singh is saying that Bangalore is the worst city and he's giving us reasons for it. He's saying it's expensive, the traffic, the landlords. um she was actually expressing an opinion but they seem to be premises and a conclusion. So so I should rephrase

that and precision is important as you will learn in the next unit um and say the mere expression of an opinion is not an argument. So if you just opine without giving people reasons to believe what you're opining about uh that is not an argument. Okay. Um how about this one? Okay. So, so again, hopefully you've

paused, you've read the tweet. So, I'm going to just go through it. Um, the problem here is that this is a rhetorical question and questions, rhetorical or otherwise, are not arguments. So, here's a little important thing that I haven't mentioned so far, right? I've been talking about statements and sentences. um the premises, the conclusion,

everything in there has to be a declarative sentence. A declarative sentence um is the kind of sentence that is capable of being true or false. So, for example, if I say, "How's the weather today?" That's not a declarative sentence. It's a question. If I say, "Shut the door," that's not a declarative sentence. It's a command. It

can't be true or false. But if I say something like, "The sky is green," that is a declarative sentence. a false one. Or if I say that public reasoning is a lot of fun, that is also a declarative sentence, a true one. But if I say, how do you like public reasoning? That is

not a declarative sentence. Or if I say like public reasoning or else uh that's also not a declarative sentence, although I mean it. Um all right, moving on. All right, so now we have the tweet for you all to read. uh pause and read this carefully. All right. So information or a statement of fact by itself is not an

argument. Although of course a statement of fact can be deployed in an argument. So what's being said here? You can imagine adding stuff to this to make it an argument. But in some sense you know how we saw earlier we saw a conclusion without premises. In some sense we've got potential premises but without a

clear conclusion. So this isn't an argument either. Uh now read this pause and read slightly long so you may want to read this. Um all right so what's happening here is a kind of story that's being told about the United States right for 240 years the call to citizenship has given work and purpose. So, you know, he's he's

trying to make some kind of point of course, but what he's doing is he's telling a story. And again, a story by itself, a narrative is not an argument. A narrative can be used in an argument. Uh narrative can be deployed to pers for to persuade people. And here's here's something really important, right? Not

everything that persuades people is an argument. And not every argument persuades people. Um to some extent at least the goal uh depending on the context although this is quite true with public reasoning the goal of an argument is often to convince someone to persuade someone but one doesn't always get there uh but there are many ways of persuading

people apart from arguments and I'm sure you're familiar with this um in logic we often like to call these things fallacies and we say ah they're you know appeal to emotions or but you know it's not it's not clear that They're in fact it in fact there's perhaps a problem in calling them fallacies because one might

say that they aren't even trying to make an argument. They're just trying to get you to believe something. A fallacy is a mistake in an argument. Um but in this case, in the case of appealing to emotions or telling a story, trying to move people into believing something, this is arguably a form of non-rational

persuasion. So it's not trying to get you, it's not offering an argument as such. Okay. All right. But again, we'll there are nuances here that you can explore in your classes and in your seminars. We're giving you a very the videos are here just to give you a very basic um picture of what you're about to

explore in this coming week in your in your courses. Okay. Right. So, you should now know how to distinguish arguments from some standard kinds of non-arguments. What I haven't gotten into is the trickiest case and that is the case of the argument versus the explanation. But that is for the next video. These I mean

pretty much everything we've seen today you know sometimes they get confused with arguments but for the most part it's fairly straightforward to make uh this distinction uh between these kinds of non-arguments and arguments. Um, and this is something I'm going to say now and I'm going to repeat again and again because it bears repeating.

Um, the point of all of this is not to enable you to attack uh someone for not having an argument. The point of this is for you to know both when someone else is arguing and when you're arguing what must be present for there to be an argument. So for example, if you feel

that you with it yourself, right? Sometimes when we feel passionately about something, we tend to just repeat ourselves again and again instead of giving reasons for why someone else should believe what we're saying, right? So it's good to kind of stop and say, hang on, am I actually giving the person I'm talking to an argument about just

saying the same thing again and again? Um, similarly, when somebody else is talking to you, they may not articulate a conclusion. And there may be some kind of a lot of missing steps that they haven't actually said out loud. And so you may think, "Hey, there isn't an argument here." But your next step, your

next thought shouldn't be, "Hey, there isn't an argument here. I got you." Your next step should be something like, "Hey, there'sn't an argument here. Uh, what can I do to help this along the way?" Or, "Is the person I'm talking to intending to offer an argument? And if so, what can I give them to help them

make that argument?" Right? So the goal of all of this is cooperation, discussion, improving reasoning in the public sphere, uh not giving you debaters tools, not giving you tools to attack other people. So that's and again these these boundaries um are not always very clear between arguments and non-arguments. Don't take everything I

say as gospel truth either. Um but generally for the most part, the things I've just gone over for the reasons that I've given you are to be classified as non-arguments. And if any of this didn't make sense to you, again, re-watch this video, ask questions of your instructors, uh, and if it's all crystal

clear, it's all limpid, then you can move on to the next video on arguments versus explanations. That's the second of the three videos for this week.