NATURE OF ARGUMENT

What is argument?  Monty Python sketch: “I’d like to have an argument”

definition  “Argumentation is a form of instrumental communication relying on reasoning and proof to influence belief or behavior through the use of spoken or written messages” (Rybacki & Rybacki, 2008, p. 3).

“…a form of instrumental communication…”  arguing is usually a means to an end, not the end itself  other types of interactions have terminal value, e.g., the conversation is the goal.

“…relying on reasoning and proof…”  the essence of argument is reason-giving  an arguer can’t simply make an assertion; she or he must offer a reason or proof

“…to influence belief or behavior…”  arguing is a form of influence or persuasion  emphasis is on rational rather than emotional appeals  emphasis is on central rather than peripheral processing

central versus peripheral processing  Central processing: actively thinking about ideas and processing available information  reflective, analytical decision making  reading product reviews  looking up consumer ratings  seeking out objective, expert opinions  Peripheral processing: using mental shortcuts, “heuristic” cues.  habitual, reflexive decision making  relying on celebrity endorsements  giving in to brand loyalty  basing a decision on “bells and whistels”

focus is on disagreement  Arguing focuses on disagreement, controversy  people usually only argue if one of them is uncertain of the outcome  if a conclusion is certain, inescapable, there is no need to argue

argument is audience- centered  arguing is audience-centered  we fashion arguments with specific listeners in mind  effective arguments are geared to the receiver’s frame of reference  an argument that appeals to one audience may not appeal to another

argumentation is probabilistic  arguing is always “iffy” because there is no guarantee the other person(s) will agree  in argument, success is usually a matter of degree  the other person might convince us instead

argument is rule-governed  Conventions for arguing are based on formal and informal rules  formal rules in legal argument: admissibility of evidence, exclusionary rule  formal rules in social science argument: p <.05 level of significance, scale reliability, replication  NFL challenges and instant replay  Informal rules in everyday argument  turn-taking, interruptions  fairness  requirements for evidence  ad hominem attacks  availability condition

 Rhetorical perspective:  views arguments as being audience- centered  arguing is strategic: arguments must be adapted to the listener’s frame of reference standards for evaluating arguments are person-specific, situation dependentstandards for evaluating arguments are person-specific, situation dependent Three perspectives of argument

Three perspectives- continued  Dialectical perspective:  views argument as a back and forth, give and take process  arguments are multilateral, they evolve, change, and develop over time  involves testing arguments in the “marketplace of ideas,” assumes the strongest arguments will prevail

Three perspectives  Logical perspective:  presumes there are objective, universal standards for evaluating arguments  arguments are unilateral, complete, self- contained  based upon formal logic, standards for determining validity/invalidity

Ethical standards for argument  Teleological ethics: focuses on consequences  the outcome is what matters  greatest good for the greatest number  example: lying is sometimes necessary and even desirable, abortion is justified under certain circumstances

Ethical standards for argument  Deontological ethics: based on moral absolutes  principles don’t change due to situations, circumstances  based on a priori moral standards  example: torture is morally wrong, abortion is murder, eating meat is immoral

Ethical standards for arguing  Clarity: making arguments clear and concise, avoiding purposeful ambiguity  Honesty: being candid, not relying on deceit, distortion, misrepresentation  Efficiency: involving the audience, making the form and content of the argument effective  Relevance: adapting arguments to the listener’s frame of reference

Pro-social view of argument  Arguing is a key ingredient in decision making and problem solving  Arguing gets issues out in the open; lets people know where they stand  Arguing is a peaceful means of conflict resolution