Chapter 2 Arguments and Argumentation Chapter 2 An

Chapter 2 Arguments and Argumentation

Chapter 2 An argument is the fundamental building block of persuasion.

Chapter 2 Definition— • An argument is a collection of statements organized in a way that highlights connections between those ideas to demonstrate that because some of the statements in the collection are believed to be true, other statements in the collection should be accepted as true.

Chapter 2 Marcus Tullius Cicero—Three Goals for Persuading People 1) Stimulate your audience’s emotions. 2) Change its opinion. 3) Get it to act.

Chapter 2 1) Start by changing its mood. 2) Then, change its mind. 3) Finally, fill it with the desire to act. (Remember…convincing someone to act is the most difficult part!)

Chapter 2 • Arguments are composed of three components: claim, support, and inference.

Chapter 2 • The claim is the statement that the person making the argument wants the person hearing the argument to accept. If I offer an argument that seeks to demonstrate that euthanasia should be permitted for terminally ill people, the claim that I want you to accept is “the state should permit euthanasia of terminally ill people. ” Claims are the ideas that the audience does not yet accept as true and which the person creating the arguments seeks to have the audience accept.

Chapter 2 By itself, however, a claim is not an argument.

Chapter 2 • In an argument, support is an idea or set of ideas the audience accepts as true and that provides foundation for acceptance of the claim. The person making the argument hopes to move the audience from what they believe (the support) to what they don’t yet believe (the claim). In the euthanasia argument, the arguer may offer as support the idea that upon death, the terminally ill patient’s physical suffering ceases. Provided the audience accepts this support, they may connect it to the claim that euthanasia should be legalized.

Chapter 2 • The true magic of argument happens when the audience discovers the connection between claim and support. The discovery of this connection is known as inference. In our euthanasia example, the connection the audience would discover is that since death ends physical suffering and euthanasia hastens the inevitable death of a terminally ill person euthanasia is desirable. This desirability, expressed in terms of a society’s public policy, becomes a reason for the legalization of euthanasia.

Chapter 2 • Arguments take a variety of forms. The most basic form, addressed in our euthanasia example, is known as a simple model of argument. Claim ^ Support

Chapter 2 • In this model, the support is below the claim, indicating that the support acts as the foundation for the argument. The arrow indicates the inference, or the movement of the audience’s belief from the support (in which they believe) to the claim (in which they don’t yet believe). The argument for legalizing euthanasia would look like this:

Chapter 2 Euthanasia for terminally ill patients should be legalized ^ Upon death, the terminally ill patient’s suffering ceases

Chapter 2 • The chain model of argument recognizes that an arguer is seldom certain what his audience believes and, therefore, cannot be sure which ideas will function as support. Perhaps that which the arguer thinks is support for a particular claim may itself become a claim for which the audience demands support.

Chapter 2 Claim ^ Support / Claim ^ Support

Chapter 2 Euthanasia for terminally ill patients should be legalized ^ We must respect an individual’s right to choose life or death ^ Individual autonomy is an essential element of humanity

Chapter 2 • In other cases, the arguer may offer a variety of bases of support as foundation for his claim. Providing a variety of support for the claim increases the chances that an audience will find compelling at least one and perhaps multiple areas of support. This form of argument is represented in the cluster model.

Chapter 2 ^ Support Claim ^ Support

Chapter 2 Euthanasia for terminally ill patients should be legalized ^ ^ ^ -We must respect an individual’s right to choose to live or die -Upon death, the terminally ill patient’s suffering ceases -Euthanasia relieves the family’s financial burden

Chapter 2 • Finally, the complex model of argument represents the combination of the chain and cluster models. This form occurs when the arguer offers a variety of bases of support for the claim, some or all of which may themselves become claims that need supporting. Most arguments resemble the complex model.

Chapter 2

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 According to Aristotle, all issues boil down to three key points… 1) Blame—Who Moved My Cheese? 2) Values—Whether an issue is moral or immoral. 3) Choice—To do, or not to do.

Chapter 2 Aristotle’s three points correspond to the three primary tenses… 1) Blame = The Past 2) Values = The Present 3) Choice = The Future

Chapter 2 Aristotle, who devised a form of rhetoric for each of the tenses, liked the future tense the best. -The rhetoric of the past deals with issues of justice. **Important Term** -forensic rhetoric—rhetoric concerned with determining guilt and meting out punishment.

Chapter 2 The rhetoric of the present handles praise and condemnation, separating the good from the bad, distinguishing groups from other groups, and individuals from each other. It is the communal language of commencement addresses, funeral orations, and sermons. It celebrates heroes and condemns a common enemy. It gives people a sort of tribal identity.

Chapter 2 **Important Term** -Deliberative Rhetoric—The rhetoric of the future that argues about choices and how to meet mutual goals. According to Aristotle, deliberative rhetoric’s chief topic is “the advantageous”. This is the most pragmatic kind of rhetoric. It focuses on experience.

Chapter 2 Remember… Since, in life, many issues are neither “black” nor “white”—but a shade of gray—deliberation is an important focus in argument. It is a good idea, when you argue, to shift the tense to the future. In this way, you will be more persuasive.

Chapter 2 Argumentation

Chapter 2 • Argumentation occurs when at least two individuals advance, critique, and defend arguments in an effort to prove that their claims should be preferred to the other arguer’s claims.

Chapter 2 • This exchange requires the participants to develop and articulate their own arguments, to listen to the arguments of the other participant(s), to critique the arguments made by the other participant(s), to defend their own arguments against critique, and to compare and contrast the arguments made by all the participants in the exchange.

Chapter 2 • Argumentation may take place with the goal of convincing those who argue to change their actions or opinions, or it may seek to convince an audience to change their actions or opinions. Debating is a structured form of argumentation that seeks to convince an audience of a particular point of view.

Chapter 2 Modes of Argumentation

Chapter 2 • Understanding modes of argumentation helps us to know which arguments are relevant in a particular disagreement, what support is needed to prove a claim true, and how opposing claims may be countered.

Chapter 2 • Robert Trapp identifies three modes of argumentation: • descriptive • relational • evaluative

Chapter 2 Descriptive argumentation focuses on disputes about the nature and definition of things; relational argumentation concerns disputes about the relationship between things; and evaluative argumentation deals with disputes about the worth or value of things.

Chapter 2 • These modes of argumentation may operate independently of one another or they may be interconnected.

Chapter 2 Descriptive Argumentation

Chapter 2 • The descriptive mode of argumentation concerns the nature and definition of things. Descriptive argumentation occurs when people disagree about what something is. For example, when debating about the legalization of euthanasia, the parties involved often exchange descriptive arguments about whether euthanasia is murder. The participants arguing about this question would be engaged in the descriptive mode of argumentation.

Chapter 2 Creating Descriptive Arguments

Chapter 2 • Arguers may use the tactic of differentiation to demonstrate the nature of a thing. To do so, the arguer would place thing under consideration into a general class and then differentiate that thing from the rest of the class. If arguing about the nature of global warming, a debater may claim that global warming is an increase of temperature on the earth’s surface (class) caused by the atmospheric greenhouse effect (differentiation).

Chapter 2 • The use of example to describe the features of a tangible instance of the thing under consideration may help to illustrate that thing’s nature and definition. Were I to argue that free trade allows Nike to export jobs to developing nations that do not have strong regulations to protect labor or the environment, I would be using an example of free trade to illustrate the nature and definition of free trade.

Chapter 2 • When comparing the thing under consideration to other, similar things, arguers may use analogies to demonstrate the nature and definition of that thing. To argue that the recreational use of marijuana should be legalized, debaters may compare how marijuana would be handled to the way in which alcohol is regulated. By drawing parallels between the management of these two intoxicants, the arguers hope to demonstrate the nature and definition of legalized marijuana.

Chapter 2 • Finally, arguers may rely on authority to establish the nature and definition of a thing. In so doing, the arguers are relying on someone or something with perceived expertise to define the characteristics of the thing in question. When presenting arguments about the nature of education, a debater may claim that education is a fundamental human right because it is identified as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Chapter 2 Opposing Descriptive Arguments

Chapter 2 • To counter arguments in descriptive argumentation, you will find several tests useful. First, you may test arguments by determining how intrinsic the characteristics associated with the thing being described are. Characteristics that are intrinsic to the thing being described are material to the description of that thing. On the other hand, those characteristics that are not intrinsic may be said to be immaterial to the description of the thing.

Chapter 2 • For example, when countering an argument that claims that capital punishment as practiced in the United States is racist, an opponent may claim that the characteristic of racism is not intrinsic to the act of capital punishment. He may assert that while the punishment may be administered in a way that is racially biased, the racially biased application of capital punishment is not an intrinsic characteristic of capital punishment. By doing so, he hopes to convince an audience that capital punishment may be practiced in a way that is not racially biased.

Chapter 2 • Another effective test of descriptive arguments is thoroughness. The test of thoroughness asks whether all the relevant characteristics of the thing being described have been identified. If the description is not sufficiently complete, the description is not adequate.

Chapter 2 • If, for example, a debater were arguing on behalf of laws to prohibit the use of drugs, she might claim that such laws seek to protect people from activities that may be harmful. An opponent of such laws could counter by saying that such laws not only protect people from themselves but also represent, for some of the law’s advocates, the expression of a moral opposition to recreational drug use. As such, a characterization of the laws as exclusively benevolent is not a sufficiently thorough description of antidrug laws.

Chapter 2 Relational Argumentation

Chapter 2 • Argumentation about causal relationships is concerned with the ability and likelihood of one phenomenon or event producing another.

Chapter 2 • Causal argumentation concerns relationships about which we can never be certain.

Chapter 2 Creating Relational Arguments

Chapter 2 • One of the most effective ways to make broad, comprehensive causal arguments about relationships is to employ the technique of reduction.

Chapter 2 • Reduction proposes that a general claim about a causal relationship (i. e. , one difficult to predict) will be reflected in a more narrow consideration of that same causal relationship (which is easier to predict). If, for example, I wanted to argue that harsher penalties for driving while intoxicated would decrease drunk driving, I might reduce the asserted causal relationship to an examination of one person’s behavior: I may argue that I would be less likely to drive drunk if I knew that my first conviction would result in significant jail time; therefore we should pass harsher sentences.

Chapter 2 • Another approach to reduction is to substantiate arguments about broad causal relationships within a class by narrowing the consideration to the characteristics of that class. If I argue that we can motivate consumers to use renewable energy by offering subsidies that would make it cheaper than non-renewable sources, I may substantiate that claim by pointing out that people (consumers) are self-interested and greedy and will therefore seek products that are cheaper.

Chapter 2 Another way to make causal arguments is through the use of analogies.

Chapter 2 • This strategy asserts a causal relationship between things by comparing the unknown instance with circumstances that are known. If I argued that creating a public health system would solve the health care crisis in the United States and I offered as support the effectiveness of public health care systems in Canada and the United Kingdom, I would be using analogies to establish the projected causal relationship.

Chapter 2 A final way to establish causal arguments is to rely on authority.

Chapter 2 Opposing Relational Arguments

Chapter 2 • A very basic test of causal arguments is the test of capability. Before inquiring about the likelihood of the causal relationship asserted in an argument, this test asks whether the alleged cause is capable of producing the alleged effect. Those who contest the deterrent effect of capital punishment often use this test to undermine the causal relationship asserted by those who claim that capital punishment will deter murder. Most murder, opponents claim, is an act of passion, not the product of rational contemplation. Accordingly, a deterrent that requires the potential criminal to ponder the consequences of his behavior will fail. In other words, capital punishment will not deter murder.

Chapter 2 • A second test of causal reasoning is the examination of whether the causes are necessary and sufficient to produce the alleged effect.

Chapter 2 • Necessary causes are those required to bring about an alleged effect: the presence of oxygen is a necessary cause of combustion. Sufficient causes are those that will, by themselves, bring about the alleged effect. While oxygen is required for combustion, it will not, by itself, produce combustion.

Chapter 2 • The absence test is another way to assess causal relationships. To employ the absence test, an arguer would prove that without the alleged cause, the effect continues to exist. This observation makes the alleged causal relationship suspect. When countering an argument that violence in the media produces actual violence, I may claim that violence has been a part of human behavior since the dawn of time and, therefore, violence cannot be blamed on the media.

Chapter 2 • Correlativity is another significant factor in establishing compelling causal arguments. This test assesses the co-occurrence of the alleged cause and effect. Underlying the test of correlativity is the assumption that if the cause and effect are indeed related, as the cause increases (or decreases) the effect will simultaneously increase (or decrease).

Chapter 2 • Another common test of alleged causal relationships is the test of alternativity. Alternativity asks whethere are other causes capable of producing the same effect.

Chapter 2 Evaluative Argumentation

Chapter 2 • Through evaluative argumentation we determine what is good and bad, desirable or undesirable, favorable or unfavorable. • The vast majority of argumentation that occurs in competitive debating culminates in evaluative argumentation.

Chapter 2 Creating Evaluative Arguments

Chapter 2 • Creating evaluative arguments requires two steps: identification of the components of evaluation and comparison of those components.

Chapter 2 --Define Your Terms --Compare to the Standard (what is good or bad? ) --Argue Relative Worth (not good / bad…but mere comparison)

Chapter 2 Opposing Evaluative Arguments

Chapter 2 --Challenge the Definition --Challenge the Standard --Challenge the Measurement of the Object Against the Standard (accept the standard / criticize the measurement)

Chapter 2 • Understanding how arguments function and how they may be structured is a necessary precursor to understanding how those arguments may be exchanged in descriptive, relational, and evaluative modes of argumentation. With the techniques of developing and critiquing each of these types of argument firmly in hand, we may now begin to consider how to apply these techniques to your advantage in competitive debating.

Chapter 2 Aristotle’s most powerful tools of persuasion… 1) Argument by Character 2) Argument by Logic 3) Argument by Emotion

Chapter 2 Logos—argument by logic—it uses both pure logic and the logic of the audience (what the audience is thinking). Ethos—argument by character—it employs the persuader’s personality, reputation, and ability to look trustworthy. “A person’s life persuades better than his word. ” Pathos—argument by emotion—it employs sympathy. ‘Pathos’ forms the root word of sympathy.