Discourse Community Essay: Key Concepts, Structure, and Worksheet Outline
Claim, Reasons, Warrants
Basic argument structure in the transcript:
Claim: Football is better than soccer because there’s more action.
Reason(s): This breaks into two parts:
Part 1: Sports with more action are better than sports with less action.
Expressed as a general principle: sports with more action are more valuable or preferable.
Example phrasing: >= more action implies higher value.
Part 2: Football has more action than soccer.
So the claim is supported by a specific comparison of action between the two sports.
How disagreements can occur:
Disagree with the claim: “Soccer is better than football.” This is harder to argue against directly because it’s a broad value judgment without specific reasons.
Disagree with the reason: “Soccer has more action than football.” Here, the opponent provides a counter-evidence-based reason, which is usually easier to rebut with evidence.
Disagree with the warrant (the implied connection between claim and reason): They might accept football has more action but deny that action determines the value of a sport (i.e., action is not the right criterion).
Disagree with the warrant means challenging the underlying assumption linking the reason to the claim.
The role of the warrant:
A warrant is the relationship that connects the claim to the reason; what is implied by the claim and the reason.
Disagreement about the warrant questions the hidden assumption that action determines a sport’s value.
Practical point: a naysayer should be identified and explained clearly in a paper; they can disagree with the claim, the reason, or the warrant.
Context for classroom discussion:
The Strawman danger: do not falsely misrepresent the opposing view (often called a strawman).
Rogerian approach: even if you don’t use the Rogerian format, you should still present the opposing side fairly and honestly.
If your argument can stand on its own, you don’t need to caricature the opponent; present a legitimate opposing view with clarity.
How to frame the naysayer in your paper:
Identify who they are and what they believe; this helps ground the counterargument.
They may be a specific person (e.g., a named critic) or a broader belief held by a group (e.g., people who think you need more than one year of experience to join a discourse community).
Example framing: “People who think you need more than one year of experience to fully join the discourse community believe X.”
Questions you should be able to answer about the opposing side:
Who is the naysayer? What do they believe?
What do they claim, what reason do they offer, and what warrant underpins that claim?
Concluding the claims section:
The body sections (claim, reasons, warrants) lead to the conclusion; the I say (the author’s position) should remain central across ethos, pathos, and logos.
The conclusion should recap the overall argument and the I say, often re-emphasizing the importance of belonging to a discourse community, despite counterclaims.
Concessions and Refutations
What concessions look like:
You may acknowledge a point from the opposing side to show fairness (optional, but often valuable):
Example: “While it is true that you should be involved in a community to be considered part of it, you can be part of multiple discourse communities simultaneously; one involvement does not invalidate another.”
Why concede some points:
If the opponent has valid points, acknowledging them strengthens your credibility (ethos) and makes your argument more robust.
How to refute concessions:
After conceding a point, explain why your position still holds overall: provide evidence, reasoning, or a different interpretation that supports your I say.
Practical nuance:
You generally should not fully agree with the naysayer; the goal is to maintain your own position while showing understanding of their points.
General strategy:
The best naysayers are those who present at least some valid points; use their points to bolster your own argument with stronger evidence or a broader rationale.
Naysayers: Types and Framing
Types of disagreement to anticipate:
1) They disagree with the claim (e.g., soccer is better than football).
2) They disagree with the reason (e.g., soccer has more action than football).
3) They disagree with the warrant (e.g., action does not determine a sport’s value).
4) They disagree with the implied consequence or “what the claim implies” (the warrant’s implications).
How to present a naysayer:
A naysayer may be a specific individual or a broader community with shared beliefs.
Even if there isn’t a single person, you can define a naysayer by the belief they hold (e.g., “People who think you need more than one year of experience to join this discourse community”).
Example in context:
Naysayer example: a critique from someone who believes you lack enough experience to be part of the discourse community (basketball discourse community, for instance).
Important practice:
Do not rely on a strawman; present the opposing side accurately and with genuine concerns.
Concessions and Rebuttals in Depth
Making concessions:
Acknowledge the opposing side’s merits where applicable.
Use concession to set up a stronger rebuttal, not to concede the entire argument.
Rebutting the naysayer:
Provide evidence or reasoning to support your claim and to show why the naysayer’s point does not overturn your conclusion.
Crafting a strong counter-argument:
Combine ethos (credibility), logos (logic), and pathos (persuasion) to strengthen your response to the naysayer.
Structure of the Paper: The I Say, Ethos/Pathos/Logos, and the Conclusion
The core framework:
I say (the author’s central position and reasoning).
Ethos (credibility of the author and the community).
Pathos (emotional appeals or values connected to the audience).
Logos (logical arguments and evidence).
How these pieces relate:
The I say should be supported by ethos, pathos, and logos; the evidence and appeals reinforce the central claim.
The conclusion:
Functions as a recap of the entire paper.
Reiterate the I say and the three main reasons (ethos, pathos, logos).
Optionally expand on why belonging to the discourse community matters, despite naysayers.
Practical Application: DCA Worksheet and Outline
What the DCA worksheet asks you to do:
Brainstorm and outline your discourse community (DCA):
Do they have agreed-upon goals?
Do they function online or in person?
Do they have a specific lexicon or language?
For each appeal (ethos, pathos, logos), outline what you will say and the evidence you will use.
Explain the ‘so what’ and the ‘who cares’ (the relevance of your claims).
The I say is a fill-in-the-blank section for planning, but you should be specific in actual writing.
Body paragraph outlines: for ethos, pathos, logos – with explicit notes on how you will appeal to each.
Naysayer counterargument: present what the naysayer would say and your rebuttal.
Conclusion outline: provide the I say and the three reasons in summary.
Important notes on phrasing:
For logos, phrase the appeal as “I appeal to their sense of reason” rather than simply saying “I demonstrate.”
For ethos and pathos, connect to credibility and emotional relevance to the audience.
The outline emphasizes how you influence people in your community, not just transmit knowledge.
About the assignment logistics:
The instructor asks you to download the DCA outline from Canvas.
The due date is the upcoming Monday (note: class will not meet on that day due to a holiday).
You can submit the outline as a physical printout or digitally.
Specific content from the class session:
The worksheet walks you through what the ISA (I say, Ethos, Pathos, Logos) components are and how to articulate them.
It includes a fill-in-the-blank for I say and a scaffold for the three appeals.
It contains a naysayer section that mirrors the structure of the body paragraphs.
Additional notes on collaboration and context:
You will discuss a discourse community (e.g., basketball or student council) and how membership is established or questioned.
Emphasize that people can be part of multiple discourse communities; involvement in one does not invalidate others.
Discourse Communities and Membership Examples
Example discussed: basketball discourse community
Possible objection: someone might believe you don’t have enough experience to join that community.
How to address: identify beliefs, present reasons you belong, and use evidence to support your claims about your involvement and fit.
General reflection on belonging:
People may have beliefs about what constitutes membership, such as required experience, time spent, or level of involvement.
You should acknowledge valid concerns and explain how your position (I say) still holds.
Practical Advice and Classroom Workflow
During class: students open Canvas and work on the DCA worksheet outline.
The instructor emphasizes:
The importance of thinking through the questions on goals, function, and lexicon.
The need to map out the I say, the appeals, the naysayer, and the conclusion.
If you struggle with the format, you can print the worksheet and fill it by hand.
Personal note by student/professor:
The instructor notes that editing on devices (e.g., iPad) can be tricky and that they prefer using a computer sometimes for typing.
Key Terms and Concepts (Summary)
Claim: A statement about what is better or desirable (e.g., football > soccer).
Reason: The justification for the claim (e.g., more action).
Warrant: The underlying assumption linking the reason to the claim (the implicit rule that “more action = better”).
Naysayer: The opposing side or counterarguments that challenge the claim, the reason, or the warrant.
Concession: Acknowledging part of the opposing argument to strengthen credibility and the overall argument.
Refutation: Providing evidence and reasoning to counter the naysayer’s points.
Ethos: Appeal to credibility and trustworthiness.
Pathos: Appeal to emotion and values.
Logos: Appeal to logic and evidence.
I say: The writer’s core position and reasoning.
Discourse community: A group with shared goals, language, norms, and practices.
Rogerian argument: A style of argument that emphasizes understanding the opposing side and finding common ground.
Strawman: A misrepresented or weakened version of the opposing argument (to be avoided).
Quick Review Questions
What are the two parts of the initial claim about football vs soccer?
Answer: (1) Sports with more action are better; (2) Football has more action than soccer.
How is a warrant defined, and why is it important in argumentation?
Answer: The warrant is the implied relationship that connects the claim and the reason; it justifies why the reason supports the claim.
List the three ways a naysayer can disagree with a claim.
Answer: They can disagree with the claim, the reason, or the warrant (the implied connection).
Why is it important to identify and fairly present a naysayer in your paper?
Answer: It strengthens credibility and demonstrates understanding of counterarguments; it also helps forestall strawman fallacies.
What should the conclusion emphasize in relation to the I say and the appeals?
Answer: Recap the I say and how ethos, pathos, and logos support it, and briefly reiterate the significance of belonging to the discourse community.
What are typical elements of the DCA worksheet outline?
Answer: Goals of the discourse community, where they function, their lexicon, appeals for each section (ethos/pathos/logos), the “so what/who cares” question, the I say, body paragraph outlines, naysayer counterargument, and a conclusion outline.
How can concessions be used effectively in a paper?
Answer: Acknowledge valid points from the opposing side and then provide a rebuttal to reinforce your own argument.
LaTeX Notes for Formulas and Numbers
When referencing quantities in the notes, you can mark them with LaTeX for clarity:
Two parts: 2 parts
Three different people: 3 different people
One specific person: 1 specific person
Any mathematical expressions or formulas should be enclosed in double dollar signs, e.g., a^2 + b^2 = c^2 (as applicable to future content)