The author realizes that using AREL (Assertion, Reasoning, Example, Link), a structure they learned in debate, could help improve how they communicate ideas at their startup. AREL provides an understandable form for arguments. The author plans to practice organizing their thoughts into the AREL structure before discussing ideas with their co-founders, in order to present ideas more clearly.

1. AREL for startup discussions
A REL is this format for argumentation that I teach in debate. When I was in the shower earlier today, I realized that AREL mi ght be the
answer to some of my communication problems - problems that I had been struggling with for a good part of the last four months.
F irs t, though, some background: I ’m a pretty decent debator. I founded the debate c lub in my high school, taught it as a s port for three
years, and s till occasionally go back to coach my kids. (Y es - it’s a nerdy s port, and yes, that means I ’m sort of a nerd).
B ut a funny thing happens when I ’m engaged in an discussion at my s tartup. My arguments are messy and unstructured, my assertions rife
with examples and conditional cases. I s ometimes s ound like a unsound person when we’re debating product-related features. A nd I won’t be
surprised if my co-founders think me leaky-in-the-brain on certain matters.
I found this s tate of affairs confusing because I’m the direct opposite of that wh en I ’m at debate. When I ’m s peaking in a debate match, what
I say tends to be s tructured, easy-to-follow, and intelligent-sounding (one hopes that it really is intelligent, but debates occasionally bend the
truth for the sake of argumentation.). At the very least, it sounds as if I ’ve given some thought to the ideas I’m about to convey. Nothing at
all like how I sound like in a typical feature discussion at Pandamian.
I ’m beginning to suspect that this has to do with the way I ’m structuring my thoughts. A RE L helps give understandable form to my ideas in a
debate - could it be that it would help me in a s tartup discussion?
For the uninitiated, AREL is:
A ssertion - you make your statement.
Reasoning - you give the core logic for your assertion.
Example - you introduce one or two examples as demonstration for your logic in practice. (Note: the examples may be real, or they may be in
the form of an analogy). I n the c ontext of a debate, examples are the least important element of an argument. T hey don’t mean anything
without the logic.
Link - you link your arguments back to whatever the overarching theme of your case is (i.e.: the bigger picture in which your argument is
merely trying to convey). Links are not required for self-obvious arguments.
A quick example, taken from my debate files (abortion debates are very common in the debate world, and so this is one of the oldest
arguments out there):
Assertion: A bortion should be legalized because of freedom of choice.
Reasoning: A bortion or the freedom to abort should be left to the choice of the mother. I f a mother feels she is not ready to provide for a
child, if she feels that her life is threatened or if the baby was the result of rape, then it is fully within her right as a n independent individual of
a democratic nation (such as ours) to choose abortion.
M uch opposition to abortion comes from the religious right, who s tate that the baby’s right to live is more important than th e woman’s right
to choose. But we believe that our personal beliefs should not dictate public policy. In other words, we do not agree that small minorities
should have the right to impose their beliefs and their religions on Government, and override the fundamental democratic principle that is the
freedom to conscience (that is, the right to follow one’s own beliefs in matters of religion and morality).
Example: T he landmark case for abortion in America is Roe v Wade, in which the court ruled in favour of the freedom to choose. T his ru ling
was based on the 9th and the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, which s tates that firstly, the state cannot restrict the liberty of a
c itizen, and that secondly, a person is entitled to a reservation of his or her rights, and this cannot be taken away by individuals who have
rights under the Constitution. I n s imple terms, the c ourt decided that a woman’s right to c hoose an abortion is fully preserved under a
democratic Government.
Link: A nd so, given that people have the right to c hoose under our nation’s c onstitution, we s hould legalize abortion.
T hat’s a full argument right there. A nd I realize now, writing this, that AREL’s also probably why I sound more intelligent in writing than when
I do s peaking: my writing forces me to lay out my thoughts in a rough A REL form. A nd that’s a good thing.
A s for my s tartup-related problem: an argument on accepting features, say, should sound like this:
" I think the best way to respond to a feature request is to ask ‘why?’ or ‘what do you really want?’" (A ssertion) " It’s important to get the
features right - if we don’t get them right, or we add s omething that we regret later, there’s no way of retracting a feature without making
our users angry. So we have to be careful. What that really means is getting to the root cause of what they want." (Logic) "Sometimes, when
a user s ays that he wants X , what he really means is that he wants something else, but he doesn’t know how to communicate that to you

2. bec ause he has never thought in terms of product design. S o what happens is that he’s seen F eature X s omewhere and thinks this would
s olve his problem. Whereas it’s a better idea for us to ask him what he really wants, and then figure out if F eature X is the best way of solving
his real need. O r if there’s a better way, or a s impler one.” (Example). “That way we won’t do any featu res we regret, and we’ll still please
our us ers in new ways.” (L ink).
T hat’s the hope, at least, that I get to speak this way.
M y c urrent plan is thus: the next time we’re at a s tartup discussion, I ’m going to pause to marshall my thoughts. Then I ’m go ing to arrange
whatever ideas I have into a rough A REL s tructure in my head. Then I ’ll deliver it to my co-founders, the full four (or three) parts of it.
I owe it to them to present the ideas I have in the clearest manner possible. I ’m not s ure if A REL is the answer, but I’m willing to give it a
shot. I hope it works.