C enter for A cademic E xcellence SmartSlides

Argumentation: An Introduction

Definition: In everyday life, the word “argument” carries negative overtones and suggests that whoever is most aggressive— or whoever shouts loudest and most insistently—wins. In the academic sense of the word, it carries no such negative connotation. Instead, argument involves the debate and discussion of issues about which intelligent people differ. The Academy recognizes that no two human beings think quite alike, since we are products of our parentage, our places of origin, our ethnicities, our religions, our upbringing, our educations, our experiences, and even of the books we read.

What this suggests, of course, is that when people hold opinions different from our own, we have to assume that those opinions are sincerely held, are based upon reasoned analysis, and are not subscribed to arbitrarily, peevishly, maliciously, or as a matter of sheer deviance. In other words, we need to take other people seriously, to hear them out, to weigh their arguments against what we already know, and— after careful analysis, synthesis, and evaluation— to reformulate our own world view.

Ethics of Argumentation: When presenting an argument, we have an ethical responsibility to be fair, reasonable, and well- informed about the issues at hand—aware of the counter arguments, and open-minded enough to engage in meaningful discussion. We also have a responsibility to avoid both animosity and polarization. We do not wish to create an “us” versus “them” mentality. This includes qualifying our claims and fostering a spirit of tolerance, so that those who disagree with us feel free to engage in open debate.

Types of Argument: Three distinct styles of argument are generally addressed in first-year writing courses: 1.Classical Argument 2.Toulmin Argument 3.Rogerian Argument Although all three styles share certain principles in common, their approaches vary.

All three approaches recognize the importance of being well informed about the topic under discussion. All three emphasize the importance of fairly, clearly, and reasonably representing the facts. All three stress the importance of clearly understanding and representing reasonable counterarguments.

When faced with argument, there are three ways to respond: 1.To refute the argument 2.To acknowledge the argument 3.To accept the argument

The Toulmin approach identifies the essential parts of an argument as follows: Issues Claims Evidence Assumptions Warrants Backing Authority Although a strict Toulmin argument requires all of these, Classical and Rogerian argument require only an understanding of the general principles.

Issues are of three types: 1.Issues of substantiation (require proof) 2.Issues of evaluation (require judgment) 3.Issues of policy (require new regulations)

Let us take the topic of smoking, for example, and formulate claims that address each of the possible issues: 1.Smoking – Issue of substantiation: Second-hand cigarette smoke is harmful to non- smokers. (This can be substantiated by facts.) 2.Smoking – Issue of evaluation: Smoking is essentially immoral. (This requires moral judgment.) 3.Smoking – Issue of policy: Smoking ought to be banned in all public settings. (This proposes a changing of the rules.)

A claim states a position in regard to an issue: Prince Hamlet is clearly sane at the beginning of the play, but he descends into madness when he recognizes his uncle’s treachery and his mother’s perfidy. Prince Hamlet is not, in fact, mad, but deliberately feigns madness, so that he is more easily able to take revenge upon his uncle. It is time for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine and to seek reconciliation with the international community, which it has up until now chosen to alienate. Gay demands for equality threaten the very fabric of our society. If we are to save the family, we must insist upon marriage as a contract between one man and one woman, yielding no quarter to activist judges or to the gay agenda.

Claims, of course, need to be backed up with facts, examples, statistics, evidence, expert testimony, or personal (and therefore anecdotal) experience. Because our experiences and expertise lead us to varying conclusions, it is not always possible to brand someone right or wrong. Consider the following examples:

1.Claim: Professor X is a bad teacher. Evidence: He doesn’t grade our papers. He simply places a check mark in the right-hand margin and expects us, over the course of the semester, to figure out what’s wrong and to make corrections. The grade is only assigned at the end of the semester. Assumption: Good teachers assign grades. 2.Claim: Professor X is an excellent teacher. Evidence: He doesn’t grade our papers. He simply places a check mark in the right-hand margin and expects us, over the course of the semester, to figure out what’s wrong and to make corrections. The grade is only assigned at the end of the semester. Assumption: Good teachers foster inductive learning.

Who is to say that either argument is right or wrong? Our only recourse is to examine a wider array of factual and anecdotal evidence, to determine what works best for most students, and to draw reasonable conclusions based on the results.

Remember that an academic thesis (the basic claim) must have each of the following qualities: 1.It must be CLEAR 2.It must be ARGUABLE 3.It must be QUALIFIED

By qualified is meant that the conclusions are not stated categorically. They are not phrased in such a way as to suggest a definitive response or to suggest that the answer offers proof positive that there is no alternative to the conclusion. To state definitively that homosexuality is wrong, that the lifestyle is sinful, and that God hates homosexuals, so there can be no justification for gay marriage (particularly since the term “marriage” belongs to the Church) is an example of an unqualified conclusion.

One might reach the same conclusion, but on the basis of less categorical criteria: It would seem that gay marriage, though affording comfort to homosexual couples, would not serve society in the same way that heterosexual marriage does, by guaranteeing the continuation of the species. Because society has a vested interest in fostering family life, gay couples are not owed the same societal privileges or protections as heterosexual couples. This is a qualified conclusion and leaves the conversation open for further discussion.

Impartiality or Open-Mindedness: Academics have a basic responsibility to approach research impartially, to conduct it with an open mind, and to do so without some foregone conclusion in mind. The researcher should have no vested interest—financial, intellectual, emotional, or otherwise—in the outcome of the research, and should be willing to present all of the issues, arguments, and counter arguments, without concealment or fabrication. The Academic’s basic responsibility is to honesty and truth, even (and perhaps particularly) where the findings might be unsettling or unpopular, or where they might challenge the researcher’s own closely cultivated prejudices. Although these may be the ideals of academic research, they are not always easy to live up to, and research is often flawed in consequence.

The Ideals: The basic principles of research involve (a) thoroughly informing yourself of the issues, whether you agree with them or not, (b) presenting those issues to your readers in a fair and balanced way, and (c) reaching logical conclusions based on your research, rather than on your prejudices. In other words, you do not make the research fit your conclusions, you allow your conclusions to emerge from the research. These, then, are the ideals. Try to incorporate them into your thinking and into your writing. Balance Fairness Honesty Impartiality

Ma’at Thetis Tarot Card PowerPoint Presentation by Mark A. Spalding, BA, MEd, MA (2008). The End

C enter for A cademic E xcellence SmartSlides