Argument based on speculation

I was wondering if it is acceptable to argue a point that cannot be proven. For example; Person A states that majority of people on this earth have never stolen anything in their life. Would it be acceptable to argue against Person A using speculation as to why the majority of people have stolen at least once(human nature, etc)?

Some knowledge is provable, such as science, or statistics (e.g. your example).

However, other statements are true within themselves (e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried).

The latter statement needs not rely on evidence, as all bachelors are unmarried by defenition.

>>2

Perhaps I should have chosen a better example.

What if I was attempting to convince the reader that everyone has stolen at one point using only examples such as lack of security, human nature to want something for nothing, etc. Would this be defined as a weak argument?

I'm arguing against the statement: "Many of the people on this planet have never stolen." Specifically arguing that more people have than the author gives credit. I'm trying to convince the reader by explaining things that enable theft.

>>3
No, that would be a bullshit argument. You can't do anything more with the information you have than argue that stealing seems pretty universally easy and attractive to you.

Not that you couldn't convince some people with clever writing and a good imagination, but that doesn't mean you have a good argument. Just a bad audience.

>>4

Excellent. Thank you, kind anon.

I always learned that the burden of proof rests on the person making the argument.  It might be more effective to argue why Person A would be wrong in saying that the majority of people have never stolen anything in their lives - find their "proof" and undermine it, or point out that they have none to take away their credibility.

and I know you said it "can't be proven" but everyone has some sort of reference for the arguments they make.

loki's gambit bro

>>3

The argument is pretty weak, yes. If you are really trying to sell the idea that EVERYBODY has stolen, then your argument can be demolished by one person who has never stolen before. However, a lot of the time people are not that finicky, and are willing to accept the gist of what you are trying to say. This can be dangerous, though, and it is often done automatically without further questioning.

Anyway, you would need a more sound premise.

Don't let this get to you though. It's perfectly fine to be skeptical of an idea/claim because it does not match your understanding of how the world works. Saying that you find the claim to be unlikely for such-and-such a reason would be just fine as a response. It would also further the discussion.

I don't think that most people in the world have never stolen. Whether it's candy from a friend, a ciggerette, a little bit of money, whatever. I'm skeptical of the idea because of similar reasons as you (human nature, ect).

Dude, all fiction authors argue like this.

>>9
>whether it's candy from a friend, a cigarette, a little bit of money, whatever

What about little blue pens from argos? Everyone steals those.

That which is asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

That's practically never true.

>>11
Those pens are for everyone