Chapter 11 Arguing

Americans like to argue. Americans like to win arguments. BUT—is this really “argument” in the definition that we have taken up from our text readings and class discussions? Which of these kinds of arguments are really “attempts to discover a truth?” And who says it is just “Americans?”

For academic writings especially, writers must avoid emotional outbursts and convince readers their points-of-view are valid and rational. Emotion can help a writer swing the way readers FEEL about an issue, but does it help a writer change an understanding, add to what is known, or alter what facts are important to an outcome? How can emotion be used in ways that are ethical and effective? How can the use of emotions be sometimes unethical or sometimes work against the goals of the writer?

A careful consideration of the audience is necessary when writing an argument. What do you need to know about your intended audience in order to be effective with these kinds of readers? Think about your specific topic; what is significant to your intended readers about this topic? What do they need to know in order to more fully understand your main claim? What information do you need to provide before these readers can understand better why the claim, decision, or action you are recommending makes sense for them?

 Written argument creates an atmosphere of reason. Written argument needs to convince rather than alienate an audience. If your claim is simple, obvious, and requires no intellectual struggle, then it isn’t worth writing about. If it is that simple then it would have been solved a long time ago. On the other hand, if it is a complex and frustrating issue then the writer needs to demonstrate understanding and respect for many points of view on it—even if she is going to claim one decision or action is a better resolution than most others for most situations.

Techniques for Writing Argument Argument begins with a debatable issue Examines more than one or two sides by considering the various stake-holders in the issue. Anticipates what opposing side will present. Evaluates conflicting positions. Written argument focuses on: The rhetorical situation A debatable claim A fair and accurate representation of the opposing view Reason and logic Sufficient evidence to support the claim It is more honest to say “all sides” than to say “both sides.” Very few issues are simple yes/no, good/bad, or all/nothing propositions. If an issue is that simple then it isn’t worth writing about. ~~Also, keep in mind that “evidence” has to be factual: based on empirical processes (observable, measureable, and repeatable processes).

Claims for Argument Claims of fact Claims of cause and effect Claims of value Claims of solutions and policies Examples of each kind of claim: ???

Appeals for Argument Appeal to Reason (logos) Scientific method Appeal to Sense of Fair Play (ethos) Appeal to Emotion (pathos) Combine Appeals—but balance appropriately for your audience and topic. Logos, Ethos, Pathos: all three are important, and an effective argument will acknowledge all three. Effective arguments also recognize that these three appeals need to in a balance that is appropriate for the sort of case being made.

Rogerian Argument Based on understanding and compromise Opens door for communication. Go for a WinWin result. The writer must be willing to examine and even change beliefs. The writer is seeking to get readers to see what they have in common with each other and with other stake-holders in an issue. Rogerian strategies work especially well if you think you need to convince a variety of stake-holders to work together on something.

Rogerian Strategies work especially well in sensitive and controversial issues Avoids a confrontational stance. Establishes common ground. Demonstrates a willingness to change views. Argues directly toward workable solutions that all sides can buy into. The key is to know about several points-of-view and what the needs and interests are of several stake-holders. This gives you the information you need to appeal to those common interests, values, goals, intentions, or aspirations to gain support for your preferred action or decision (your claim).

Toulmin Model Stephen Toulmin Six Parts Claim Grounds Warrant Backing Qualifier Rebuttal These are six elements needed to make a case based on FACTS.

Claim: the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the argument. Data (or Grounds): reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim. Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim.  Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant. Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments. Qualifier: specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing.  The degree of conditionality asserted. 

Data Claim Warrant DATA represents part of the main factual basis for your claim. CLAIM represents the recommended action, solution, answer, or decision that you are appealing for from your readers. WARRANT represents an explanation for why or how the empirical facts presented in the DATA section relate to the CLAIM section.

DATA Claim Warrant (Backing) BACKING represents additional factual support for the WARRANT. Sometimes this is necessary when you realize that your audience includes people who value different kinds of evidence in different ways, or if there is skepticism about how important a particular part of the WARRANT works.

DATA Claim Counter-Argument Warrant (Backing) Rebuttal COUNTER-ARGUMENT is an exception, objection, or counter-claim that might be used to argue AGAINST the recommended claim you are making. In other words, it is one of those other points-of-view that other stake-holders in this issue hold. An effective writer has to know how to bring up these counter-arguments and use them to strengthen her main claim. REBUTTAL is the way that the writer deals with the COUNTER-ARGUMENT. Generally this is done by acknowledging some qualifying limit to the case that the writer is trying to make.

Toulmin Model Not everyone will find the same warrant statements. Identifying the Toulmin model is more important when readers are likely to disagree with the claim. the claim is based on empirical facts more than values, precedence, or ethics. Helps communicate by being reasonable and logical. Think in terms of a Toulmin strategy if you are sure your facts are accurate, if you are confident that your facts will be important to your particular readers, and if you are dealing with a skeptical group of readers.

The Process Choose subject Collect data Shape Must have more than 2 positions possible, or more than two stake-holders in the issue. Collect data Narrow and focus Consider claim Shape Show the issue from the points-of-view of the three or more stakeholders you’ve found. An interesting argument has to engage reader’s curiosity as well as the need for a resolution. See if you can find a way to look at the issue that is unique, new, different from all the tired cases made by others. Make this solution YOURs.

Repeat items I-IV as needed to cover your sub-claims. Outline Introduction—Establish significance; establish essay map; connect to readers. Presentation (I) Narration – give background (II) Partition – state thesis or claim (III) Argument – make argument; give evidence; show connection (IV) Refutation – show opposing views and give rebuttal or qualification. Repeat items I-IV as needed to cover your sub-claims. Conclusion – summarize; suggest a solution; Ask for action or decision.

Develop Argument Think of argument as a series of “because” statements. Restatement supported by evidence, statistics, testimony, expert opinion. Specific examples from experience and sources.

Writing Argument Draft Revise Consider word choices and organization Start with a working order or sequence Make an outline Revise Check for word choice Grammar and mechanical errors

Fallacies Fallacies in logic destroy rational appeal and open argument to logical rebuttal Fallacies in logic lessen your credibility and thus reduce effect of your main claim.

Fallacies Hasty generalization Post hoc ergo propter hoc Genetic fallacy Begging the question Circular argument Either/Or Faulty comparison or analogy Ad hominem Ad populum Red herring or straw man