Argumentation Mid-Term Review

Underlying asspumtions

(1) The audience matters

(2) Argumentation takes place under conditions of uncertainty

(3) Arguers and restrained partisans

(4) Argumentation is fundamentally a cooperative enterprise

(5) Argumentation entails risk

Deliberation

An interaction in which people come together to try jointly to solve a problem

Debate

Is adversarial, 2 or more advocates present opposing views and a third party chooses between them

Public Address

Takes many forms; public speaking, print, visual representation, social media. Encompasses any practice of rhetoric that is geared to a specific situation. when engaged the speaker typically advances one side of the argument.

Claim

Statements the audience is asked to accept

Evidence

(support) reasoning to justify the claim

Warrant

Link between the claim and the evidence (inference)

Qualifiers

Language that mitigates or tones down the claim [ex) most people]

Rebuttal

Respond to potential questions the other side could pose

Backing

Additional reinforcement for the warrant

Parts of the Toulmin Model

(1) Claim

(2) Evidence

(3) Warrant

(4) Qualifiers

(5) Rebuttal

(6) Backing

Claims of fact

What the criteria are determining truth, and whether the criteria have been satisfied by the claim that is being put forward; historically can be verified

Claims of definition

Whether the interpretation put forward is relevant to the situation. When we define something (interpretation)

Claim of values

How we determine good and bad (about judgments of good and bad, better than)

Terminal Values v instrumental values

ends immediately v leading to the end

Claims of Policy

“should” taking action; used when there is a problem

Topoi

adhere to contrivances; they are issues a part of the controversy

Presumption

refers to what we presume to be correct unless and until we are shown otherwise (norm)

Burden of Proof

the responsibility to convince an audience of ones claim (the one going against the status quo)

Objective data

Statements that can be independently verified and are widely agreed to (examples/stats)

Social Consensus

Statements that, while not independently verifiable, are still widely accepted (common places/shared value judgments/historical understandings/previously established claims/stipulations)

Testimony

The statement by a qualified source related to the issue at hand (important credibility)

Standards for evaluating evidence

(1) Accessibility (available for inspection)

(2) Credibility (source reliable)

(3) Internal Consistency (is it contradictory)

(4) External Consistency (does contradict other evidence)

(5) Recency (is there more timely evidence)

(6) Relevance (Does it bear on conclusion)

(7) Adequacy (is it satisfactory)

(8) Accuracy (is it true)

(9) Context

(10) Appropriateness (to the purpose)

Standards for evaluating Internet Evidence

(1) Basic Standards

(2) Creator

(3) Credentials

(4) Purpose

(5) Scholarship

(6) Confirmability

(7) Recency

Validity

The quality of an argument independent of the evidence or claim; concerns the connection between them

Argument from Example

Arguments that relate parts to wholes (generalizations/anecdotal) based on warrants of representativeness

Slippery Slope

Consist of the assumption that any difference of degree will become a difference in kind; asserts that if we allow A to happen then Z will happen to (now caffeine next coke)

Fallacy

Are invalid arguments, even if the statements they offer as evidence were all true, those statements would not warrant an inference to the claim

Composition/division

Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it (the car is blue so the engine must be blue)

Ad hominem

Attacking your opponent’s character o personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument

Begging the Question

A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise

Straw man

Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack; making another persons position weaker than it really is

Ignoring the question/Red herring

Pointing at something else as a way of distracting; the premises of the argument are logically unrelated to the conclusion

Anecdotal Fallacy

Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics

Appeal to Nature

Making the argument that because something is natural it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal

Black or White

Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist

Personal Incredulity

Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand, its therefore not true

Appeal to Authority

Saying that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true

Middle Ground

Saying that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth

False Cause

Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other; (the sunrises when the rooster crows therefore the rooster makes the sunrise)

Tu Quoque

Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser, answering criticism with criticism

What are the Four factors of Credibility

(1) Expertise

(2) Track Record

(3) Self-interest

(4) Who in position to know (Witness)

Accessibility

Is the evidence available for inspection?

Credibility

Is the source of the evidence reliable? Can we trust them to be telling the truth?

Recency

Is there more timely evidence available?

Relevance

Does it bear on the conclusion?

Accuracy

Is the evidence true?

Stasis

Refers to the point where arguments should collide - refers to it as the fulcrum of an argument and represents the question that must be settle in order to end the dispute

True

T/F It is better to have the Presumption in an argument/controversy, not the burden of proof

Logic

Is concerned with the relationship between statements in an argument

False

T/F all disagreements rise to a level of argumentation

Stasis in Conjecture

The central Question is “is it? Did the act occur?”

Stasis of Definition

The central question is “What is it?'“ or “What should we call the act?”

Stasis in Quality

Raises the question of whether the act was justified

Stasis in Place

involve any kind of jurisdictional question