Every field in the university has its argumentative component Science has hypotheses Political science has partisan issues Higher math becomes theoretical and relies on speculative answers Marketing argues a quality of a product Medical fields debate issues of ethics and patients’ rights Liberal arts relies on using expressionism as a mode of communication Music and art also have theory and lend themselves to interpretive analysis

Let’s analyze the debate Argumentation

What went wrong in the debate? You guys did great, by the way. Did the debate mirror how arguments really take shape? Are there really clear cut sides? Was the issue defined? What was the topic? Pencils? Love? Huh? What argumentative techniques did you use? Why? Did you know what to research? How did you shape your research? Who won?

Is winning wrong? Do we need to have winners and losers? Where do we see this agonistic model of arguing? Does it achieve anything? Who are they trying to convince? How?

So what can be argued? The claim is a matter of taste (“There has never been a better musical group than Milli Vanilli.”) The claim is a fact (“Ryan Ireland does an [amazing] impression of Bill Cosby.”) The claim is based on belief (“My brother, Jim, acts that way because of the incident. It ain’t his fault.”) Some of you want to debate one of these. You can’t in an inquiry-based argument. Sorry.

The Inquiry Method of Argument Is different. You do not take “sides.” Instead your job is to find the sides (and there are more than two). You will discover where you stand in relation to everyone else in the discussion before entering it. Therefore, the first step of the Inquiry is research. Do a cursory search using online resources like Google Scholar, the Library databases, and, yes, even Wikipedia (though there should be no evidence you started with Wikipedia by the final product).

After a little research... propose Your proposal should be brief—no more than a double- spaced page. It should give a short summary of your topic and an overview of the major positions in the conversation. It should be analytical: Who are the strongest voices? Why are they the strongest voices? Is the conversation evolving? How? And, most importantly, who is the “public” of this conversation and how is the public ecology being shaped?

Proposing You will give me your proposal and make a pitch during our next round of conferences. Conferences will be on 10/20 (with a few on 10/19). Sign- ups will be on Tuesday, the 18 th.) Your pitch can be oral, visual, or a combination of both. I will do one of three things: Green light: This means proceed with the topic and research. Yellow light: I will give you some revision ideas and ask you to do a little more research before proceeding. Purple light—just kidding!—Red light: This is not an argument and/or cannot be done within the guidelines of the project.