1. Analyzing Arguments

2. What is an argument? “the claims that people make when they are asserting their opinions and/or supporting their beliefs.” (Hollihan and Baaske) “... putting forth a claim, evidence, and reasoning.” (Verlinden)

3. Other definitions: Reason: “a statement intended to establish a claim.” (Herrick) Conclusion: “a statement accompanied by supporting reasons.” (Herrick) Claim: “a statement that does not stand alone without further proof, a conclusion the audience will not accept without verification.”(Rybacki)

4. Decision making Intrapersonal-rational arguments with ourselves. Interpersonal-rational arguments with others. Group-rational arguments used within a team setting.

5. Reasons we make arguments To justify our position on a topic. To seek to persuade someone. As a means of discovery, inquiry, and education.

6. The Narrative paradigm Developed by Walter Fisher Main premise is that “people reason through narratives” Fisher believes that “people are essentially storytellers.” We make decisions on the basis of “good reasons.”

7. More: History, biography, culture, and character determine what we consider good reasons. Narrative rationality is determined by the coherence and fidelity of our stories. The world is a set of stories from which we choose, and thus constantly re-create our lives.

8. Summary People come to understand their world and their values through narratives. We will seek out stories that fit our interests and disregard those that don’t make sense to us. If the story holds together (cohesive) we accept it as reality.

9. Arguer Orientations: Wayne Brockriede published an article in the 1970’s called “Arguers as lovers”. He proposed that arguer orientations can be framed as “rapist”, “seducer”, or “lovers”.

10. The arguer as “Rapist” Depersonalizes the other. Relies on verbal aggressiveness. (name calling, ad hominems, etc.. ) Uses force, authority, sanctions. Employs threats, ultimatums. An example: poor litigants vs. large corporations.

11. The Arguer as “Seducer” Relies on harm, beguilement, trickery. Creates an illusion of choice. Utilizes ingratiation strategies. Resorts to deception. Employs illicit reasoning (false reasoning, withholding evidence, etc.)

12. “Rapists” and “Seducers” as Arguers Displays disregard for the other person. Views other as an “object” or “target” rather than as a person. Emphasizes success, de-emphasizes relationships. Unwilling to expose oneself to the risk of change. Adopts only one perspective on a issue— one’s own.

13. Arguers as “Lovers” Regards other as an equal, stresses power parity. Values the relationship as much as (if not more than) the outcome of decision. Emphasizes cooperation and collaboration over competition. Values shared decision making, choice making. Willing to risk values, knowledge, and self- esteem by engaging in argument.

14. Conclusions: The categories aren’t mutually exclusive, they are a matter of degree. The categories are situational and contextual. A person can change his or her orientation to arguing.