Hand-out
Argumentation
Argument can be defined as a claim which is warranted by data. This
definition of argument is based on a model of argument structure developed
by a British philosopher, Stephen Toulmin (Toulmin’s Model).
The basic structure of argument according to Toulmin is composed of three
elements: Claim, reasoning (or warrant) and evidence.
Claim: a statement which a debater wants his/her audience to ultimately
accept as true. For any given argument, this might mean the assertion or the
conclusion that the speaker would like his audience to accept when the
argument is presented in the course of a debate. For example, the statement
“A democratic government is justified in limiting the public’s access to
some information”, might be a claim advanced by a side that is supporting
government censorship in a debate on the motion, “This House believes that
the censorship of free expression is justified”
Evidence: Additional information given to the audience in order to support the
claim. Words that would reasonably follow “because . . .” are offered to judges
or audiences to strengthen a claim that a debater is speaking on.
For example the evidential statement that “Revealing sensitive information
to the public in the times of war caused panic or harm popular morale”,
might be used as data to support the previous claim.
Reasoning: An explanation of a logical relationship that connects a claim to
the evidence that supports it. Reasoning is used to demonstrate that evidence
is logically interrelated with a claim. It is also used to link together each
element of Toulmin’s three part argument to produce a conclusion that can be
presented to a debater’s audience. .
In the previous example, the reasoning applied to the claim and evidence
contained in a statement would be similar to the following. “At times of crisis,
a government is justified in taking action to prevent the nation or society
coming to harm.” This statement could serve as a logical bridge between the
data and the claim.
In a debate, the claim is usually presented as the first part of the argument
followed by the reasoning that a debater wishes to apply to the evidence he
will introduce..
While debaters do not necessarily need to know the theory underlying
competitive argumentation, nor the specific terminology that has been
1
discussed above, it may be useful for them to recognize some most common
types of arguments and their strengths and weaknesses. The most common
types of arguments include:
1. Deductive reasoning. Based on inferring a specific conclusion (claim)
from a general principle.
“Terrorism is immoral (Claim) since it is consists of violent acts against
innocent people (data) Warrant: Violent acts against innocent people are
always immoral (General Principle).”
2. Reasoning by example involves inferring a general conclusion from a
particular instance
“Legalization of soft drugs can decrease hard drug use (Claim), as the
example of the Netherlands demonstrates. After legalization of the use and
sale of soft drugs in certain areas of Holland, the use of hard drugs in those
areas has decreased (Data) Warrant: the Dutch example is representative
and is applicable to other contexts).”
3. Consequential reasoning establishes a relationship between an effect
and its cause (e.g. by demonstrating that one event/ occurrence
causes another).
“If we provide people with safe drinking water we will substantially decrease
Guinea Worm Disease (Claim) because people become ill with the disease if
they drink stagnant water infected with a parasite (data). Warrant: if we
reduce the cause of Guinea Worm (breeding grounds for the parasite) we will
reduce the number of people who become infected with the parasite.”
4. Reasoning by analogy establishes a comparison between two cases
and argues that what is true of one case or event is likely to be true of
the other.
“Experiments on animals should be considered immoral, (Claim) since
involuntary experiments on human beings are considered immoral (Data).
Warrant: Human beings and animals are sentient beings and should be
treated in the same way as far as their use in experiments are concerned.”
5. Reasoning by sign draws a connection between some phenomena and
other conditions that tend to accompany those phenomena.
2
The economy has improved (Claim) since people are buying more luxurious
goods (Data) Warrant: Increased spending on luxurious goods is a sign of
economic improvement.
3