Introduction to Argumentation Objectives Students will have a

Introduction to Argumentation Objectives: üStudents will have a basic understanding of the history of formal argumentation. üStudents will compare and contrast disagreement and contradiction to argumentation and debate. üStudents will summarize the definition of an argument.

The Argument Clinic No it isn’t…Yes it is…

An formal argument is NOT �Just disagreement �Just a contradiction �The automatic gain-saying of whatever your opponent says.

An Argument can be… �A contrary position �Supporting a different point of view �Emotional

Where does it come from �Socrates and his method �The Dialectic- discovering and testing knowledge through questions and answers. �Aristotle observed persuasion. �Believed that diction, and speaking directly too, were also needed.

Rhetoric �Rhetoric concerns the audience �The study of how messages influence people. �Aristotle’s definition- “the faculty or skill of discovering the available means of persuasion in a given case. ” �**Symbolic Persuasive Communication �Everything is Rhetoric

Logic �Organized principles of reasoning. �Associated with mathematical reasoning �Socially accepted truths �Evidence �Observable data.

Forensics �Seeking truth �We do this by utilizing Dialectic, Rhetoric and Logic �This is the foundation of argumentation and debate. �There are many Truths to be found.

Argumentation �The field of study where these concepts work together. �Intellectual Process �Collective series of statements to establish a specific proposition �Argumentation is the process of making claims and using reasoning and evidence to support the truthfulness or validity of those claims.

Debate is Different from Argumentation �Has a winner �Has rules �Is focused on the audience not the opponent. �Has many positions �Requires skill and passion

The Beauty of Argument

Aristotle �The Man-Considered the Father of Rhetoric & Persuasion �First known person to really study and write about the elements of persuasion �Identified 3 Elements ◦ Ethos ◦ Pathos ◦ Logos

Ethos-Establishing credibility �One’s personal power or credibility �How can you build your credibility? ◦ ◦ ◦ Personal Appearance Smooth beginnings Credentials of Experts-Quotes Enthusiasm Thorough preparation Trustworthiness

3 types of Ethos �Perceived-Look believable �Derived-Sound Believable �Terminal- Be Believable

Pathos-emotional response �Appealing to emotions ◦ ◦ ◦ Pictures and graphics Emotional Stories Propaganda Devices Addressing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Analyzing audience

Logos- reasoning �The process of drawing logical conclusions and formulating arguments from evidence ◦ ◦ Associated with mathematical reasoning Socially accepted truths Evidence Observable data.

Logos- Logical Reasoning Cont � 2 types of reasoning �Inductive Reasoning ◦ Starts with specific facts or arguments and then leads to a conclusion. �Deductive Reasoning ◦ Starts with an argument or main premise then produces specific evidence to support it.

Ice Cream Debate

Analyzing your audience �Build Rapport �Tell a good and effective “story” �Understand how to make connections �Strike a balance between effective argumentation and story telling. �Don’t burden the judge with jargon and technicalities.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos �Ethos and Pathos are just as important as logos. �Your case, arguments, evidence and reasoning are logos. �Your professional dress, confidence, poise, courtesy and ethics build your ethos/credibility. �The way you build connections with your audience on an emotional level is your pathos.

Reasoning �The Toulmin Model �Claim �Data �Warrant

Toulmin Model of Argumentation �Claim: The conclusion of the argument or the statement the speaker wishes the audience to believe. �Data: The foundation or basis for the claim, the support. The evidence. �Warrant: The reasoning that authorizes the inferential leap from the grounds to the claim. �Citation: Giving credit to the source of quoted material. ALWAYS presented in this format – Authors name, Date of publication, Title of Publication.

Reasoning �Claim �What you are trying to prove; thesis statement

Reasoning Data Materials used to convince an audience Evidence Facts Statistics Testimony from experts Motivational appeals �Appeals to the values or attitudes of the audience

Reasoning Warrant Inference, assumption, belief, or principle that connects support to claim. Many times the warrant is implied rather than expressed directly. Take a closer look at Toulmin

Example �Claim: School uniforms should be required. �Data with Source: According to Wendell Anderson 2002 school uniforms decrease violence by 23% in urban schools. �Warrant: A school should be a safe place. Anything a school can do to decrease violence would increase safety. We should strive to promote safe schools. � Source: Anderson, Wendell. School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies. Policy Report. Washington, D. C. : Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2002. ERIC

Make your claim! �Resolved: That, on balance, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the United States. �Choose to support or oppose this resolution �On a sheet of paper make a list of claims to advocate your position.

Example �Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. �Support ◦ Social Networking promotes technology integration. ◦ Social Networking improves communication ◦ Social networking creates and supports a global community

Making an Argument �An argument is just one claim in support of a proposition or resolution. �It must also include reasoning and examples. �You must know what your opponent is saying to make an effective argument.

Credible Research �Find accurate and up to date information �Establish credibility �Credibility- The quality of being believable. �Never Lie, plagiarize, or make up sources. �Plagiarism- using someone else’s words as if they were your own. �Source Cite EVERYTHING! �Citation- giving credit to the source of quoted material.

**Tips on doing research � Start with general ideas and move toward more specific. � The computer is a machine, it can’t read your mind. � Think about the kind of answer you want: quote, story, statistics � Remember you don’t have to use every filler word: of, in, the… � Investigate your sources, make sure they are reliable. A blog is NOT reliable.

Source Citation n In text citation � “according to Aristotle…” “In an article from Time Magazine…” �Works cited ◦ You must include Authors name, Publication date, and the Title of the magazine, book, newspaper or article. ◦ A website alone is NOT a citation.

It’s true, it’s right, it does. �In debate we make many different types of claims �Propositions of Fact ◦ asserting the existence, occurrence or relationship of something. ◦ Also used to define things. �Propositions of Value ◦ asserting the rightness, wrongness, goodness or badness, or usefulness of something that exists or occurs. �Propositions of Policy ◦ Calling for or opposing specific courses of action.

There are 3 styles of Competitive Debate. �Policy �Lincoln-Douglas �Public Forum �Each has it’s own unique set of rules and standards but they are all based in a foundation of formal argumentation.

Resolution: The Subject of the Argument �A single statement capturing the substance of the controversy. �Should be recognized by all participants in a dispute �the presence of an unclear resolution or multiple resolutions indicate unclear argument and predicts trouble.

Types of Resolutions Resolution of Fact ◦ involve description ◦ concern that which, theoretically, can be described and verified independently. ◦ May relate to the past, present, or future. Resolved: Aliens exist.

Types of Resolutions �Resolutions of Definition ◦ involve interpretation ◦ categorize concepts ◦ interpretation is very important because definitions are not neutral �Resolved: Abortion is murder.

Types of Resolutions of Value ◦ involve judgment �appraisal or evaluation �evaluation can be absolute or comparative �can involve instrumental or terminal values Resolved: When in conflict, academic freedom in U. S. high schools ought to be valued above community standards.

Types of Resolutions �Resolutions of Policy ◦ involve action ◦ assertions about what should be done ◦ characteristic of deliberative bodies �I. e. Congress �Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing protection of marine natural resources.

Debate Styles �Policy �Lincoln-Douglas �Public Forum

Competitive Forensics �Rules and regs �Time limits �Idaho Debate code �Tournament expectations

Analyzing a resolution �Identify key terms �Define terms �Brainstorm �Analyze �Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

Analyzing a resolution �Definition �Both parties must be discussing the same issue �If the topic is justice, is it individual justice or community justice? �When discussing the Social Contract, is it Hobbes’, Rawl’s, Rousseau’s, or Locke’s?

Issues �Understanding Definitions �Is the interpretation relevant? �Is the interpretation fair? �How should we choose among competing interpretations?

Issues �Each type of resolution implies certain issues that must be addressed. �Issues in debate are questions that are inherent in a controversy and vital to the success of the resolution.

Issues �Resolution of Fact �What is the criterion for discovering the truth? �Criterion: a standard by which to determine the correctness of a judgment or decision. �Has the criterion been satisfied?

Issues �Resolutions of value �Is the value truly good or bad as alleged? �Which among competing values should be preferred? �Has the value been properly applied to the specific situation?

Issues �Resolutions of Policy �Is there a problem? �Where is the credit or blame due? �Will the proposal solve the problem? �On balance, will the proposal be better?

Responsibilities AKA Burdens �Presumption �Burden of Proof �Burden of Rejoinder

Burdens �Presumption �determines who must initiate the dispute �those who wish to see a change �Presumption lies with the status quo �Status Quo: existing state of affairs at a given time �establishes the minimum threshold of proof that is required

Keeping the Argument Going �Presumption �Preoccupation of ground. An accepted idea, concept, or procedure must stand good until some sufficient reason exists to dislodge it. �Presumed innocent until proven guilty

Keeping the Argument Going �Presumption provides the standard for decision �Strategic advantage to presumption �Advocates of the resolution attempt to seize presumption. ◦ Define the situation as a crisis ◦ Offer the first proposal ◦ Associate their position with a preferred value

Keeping the Argument Going �Sometimes presumption is stipulated ◦ environmental impact statements ◦ rules of law ◦ Rescission agreements (In legal agreements Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction) �Strength of presumption is relative to the consequences of being wrong.

Keeping the Argument Going �Burden of Proof �The opposite of presumption �The advocates of the resolution have the ultimate responsibility to support one’s position on the resolution. �the advocates of the resolution must cast a sufficient amount of doubt on the status quo that those defending the status quo must make an answer.

Keeping the Argument Going �The burden of proof lies with any advocate making a claim. �Advocates must present proof of a needed change. �prima facie case �one that on first glance raises significant question about the status quo.

Keeping the Argument Going �Advocates of the resolution attempt to seize presumption. �Define the situation as a crisis �Our economy is rocketing downward, to avoid another Great Depression, we must approve Bush’s tax plan now. �Offer the first proposal �The Virginia Plan at the Constitutional Convention �Associate their position with a preferred value �Thousands of Iraqi children die every year because of US imposed sanctions. These children are innocent of any wrongdoing; we have a moral obligation to change our policy and save these innocents.

Keeping the Argument Going �Burden of rejoinder/clash- to keep the discussion going �Presents counter arguments �Shifts back and forth between arguers �keeps argument going �prevents simple repetition of a position without extension

Keeping the Argument Going �Burden of rejoinder �Obligation to find faulty reasoning or respond to an argument. �Met by offering proof �proof offers support for a claim, but does not ensure its truth �Proof is reasonable if it would be taken seriously by a broad and diverse group of listeners exercising their best critical judgment.

Presentation & Communication �Clarity and Articulation �Good Personal Hygiene and Professional Dress �Effective Hand Gestures �Eye Contact �Talking to the judge NOT at them �Summarizing and Crystalizing

Other Elements of Reasoning �Logic �Inductive �Deductive �Fallacies

Other Elements of Reasoning �Language �Use of jargon �Words selected for connotation �Analogies �Metaphors and Similes