Argumentative

Epistemology

the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope.

Two ways to express epistemology

qualitative and quantative

Qualitative research

using stories

Quantitative research

using facts and statistics

3 types of arguments

Rogerian, Toulmin, and Classical

The Classical Argument has 3 parts

Ethos (reputation), Pathos (emotion), and Logos (logic)

Ethos

(Credibility) convincing by the character of the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect.

Pathos

(Emotional) appealing to the reader's emotions. Qualitative.

Logos

(Logical) persuading by the use of reasoning. Quantitative.

The Classical Argument has five parts

Introduction, Confirmation, Concession, Refutation, and Conclusion

Classical argument: Introduction

provides background or context that was relevant to the specific audience.

Classical argument: Confirmation

states claims and evidence clearly and emphatically.

Classical argument: Concession and Refutation

takes account of opposing viewpoints and anticipates objections.

Classical Argument: Conclusion

concludes in a satisfying and effective way.

Toulmin Argument

arguments are PRACTICAL and work w common, everyday situations.

Rogerian Argumentation

Emphasizes a "You win and I win too" solution, one where negotiation and mutual respect are valued.

In a Rogerian Argumentation, the writer

tries to state the audience's side of the issue fairly and objectively, so that the audience realizes the writer is treating it with respect.

Propaganda

is a method and approach used to spread ideas that further a political, commercial, religious, or civil cause

Propaganda is used to

manipulate the readers' or viewers' reason and emotions; to persuade them to believe in something or someone, buy an item, or vote a certain way.

Types of persuasive techniques used in propaganda

Appeals to association, Appeal to values, Appeals to emotion, word choices, and others

Appeals to Association

Bandwagon, Snob, Testimonials, and tranfers

Bandwagon Appeal

taps into people's desire to belong

Snob Appeal

taps into people's needs to feel superior to others

Testimonials

relies on the backing of a celebrity, an expert, or a satisfied customer

Transfers

connects a product, a candidate, or a cause with a positive image or idea

Appeal to Values

Ethical appeal and Either/or fallacy

Ethical Appeal

tries to gain moral support for a claim by linking the claim to a widely accepted value.

Either/or fallacy

This technique is also called "black-and-white thinking" because only two choices are given. You are either for something or against it; there is no middle ground or shades of gray. It is used to polarize issues, and negates all attempts to find a common ground

Emotional Appeals

Appeal to fear and Appeal to pity

Appeal to Fear

makes people feel as if their safety, security, or health is in danger.

Appeal to Pity

taps into people's compassion for others

Word choice

Loaded language, Glittering generalities, and Card stacking

Loaded Language

uses words with strongly positive or negative connotations (meanings) to stir people's emotions (ex Nazi)

Glittering Generalities

This technique uses important-sounding "glad words" that have little or no real meaning. These words are used in general statements that cannot be proved or disproved. Words like "good," "honest," "fair," and "best" are examples of "glad" words.

Card Stacking

used to slant a message. Key words or unfavorable statistics may be omitted in an ad or commercial, leading to a series of half-truths. Keep in mind that an advertiser is under no obligation "to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Others

Name calling and False Analogy

Name Calling

(ad Hominem) This technique consists of attaching a negative label to a person or a thing. People engage in this type of behavior when they are trying to avoid supporting their own opinion with facts. Rather than explain what they believe in, they prefer to try to tear their opponent down.

False Analogy

In this technique, two things that may or may not really be similar are portrayed as being similar. When examining the comparison, you must ask yourself how similar the items are. In most false analogies, there is simply not enough evidence

Common Debate Fallacies

False Analogies, Post Hoe fallacy, Ad Hoc Fallacy, Ad Hominem, and Strawman

Logical Fallacy

incorrect reasoning in an argument

Post Hoc Fallacy

(after this) bc I ate a cheeseburger b4 I got sick, it must be what got me sick

Ad Hoc fallacy

(msu fallacy) (Makin stuff up)

Ad Hominem

attacking the person and not the argument (name calling)

Strawman

acting like u defeated an argument, but u only defeated something close to that argument, far easier to disprove (a person at a daycare says they deserve a raise be they work long hours and have been there so long. The boss responds: Oh, so, you care more about money than children?)