ED4001 Argumentation: Why we
need it and how it’s structured
Howard Gibson
Darren Garside
We argue
But argument is not
• shouting at the enemy
• saying the opposite
• being (just) logical (like Spock)
• a rude substitute for just being
‘nice’
But why can’t we simply be nice and avoid
argument?
• Because the world isn’t a fair place yet.
• Because argument is concerned with injustice, illuminates the unseen,
reveals solutions, can in principle resolve conflicts, humans need it.
• Because argument is part of the intellectual and moral makeup of human
beings, an inescapable part of ‘negating the negation’, overcoming
‘natural’ and ‘unhappy consciousness’ (G.W.F. Hegel)
Nice people often confuse the interpersonal with the
philosophical
• But can’t argument be devastating AND polite?
• ‘Be more tolerant’ means….what? Tolerant of the person or their idea?
Philosophically we need arguments
John Stuart Mill (1858) On Liberty
There is the greatest difference between presuming an
opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for
contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its
truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.
Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our
opinion is the very condition which justifies us in
assuming its truth for purposes of action: and on no other
terms can a being with human faculties have any rational
assurance of being right.
Jurgen Habermas (1990) Moral Consciousness and
Communicative Action
Argumentation insures that all concerned in principle
take part, freely and equally, in a cooperative search for
truth, where nothing coerces anyone except the force
of better argument.
How is argument structured?
1. Aristotle
2. Stephen Toulmin
3. David Kaufer & Cheryl Geisler
1. Aristotle
C4th BCE
Rhetoric
Ethos: the credibility of the source - the
speaker or author’s authority
Logos: the logic used to support a claim via
induction and deduction - and the facts and
data used to help support the argument
Pathos: the emotional or motivational
appeals - vivid and emotional language,
sensory and empathetic details
Or, in Aristotelian terms, not enough Logos?
Or, in Aristotelian terms, pathetic defects?
2. Stephen Toulmin
a claim states the standpoint/conclusion
Bikes are better than cars
the data or the facts and opinions upon which the claim is based
They are good for the environment and keep people healthy
the warrant provides the justification for using the data as support
The environment is a real worry these days
sometimes a backing provides specific information to support the
warrant
Some immoral, selfish people don’t care about the environment
a qualifier can add a degree of certainty to the conclusion, an
element of qualification to appear more reasonable or less
dogmatic
Cars are, of course, occasionally necessary
exceptions to the claim are acknowledged and explicitly rebutted
Cars may go faster and keep you drier, but they are sources of
pollution and ego-mania and of danger to cyclists
If you ever are
required to write an
essay or prepare a
spoken argument
for a seminar, the
next slide may be of
some use
3. David Kaufer & Cheryl Geisler
Main Path
‘set of claims’; conjoined, cumulative and
directional
Faulty Paths
‘organise claims and support that fall
outside the author’s perspective’
Return Paths
‘opportunity to summarize… what lessons
they will take with them from the rejected
position to incorporate into their own’;
‘help readers see the limitations in faultypath claims and must help them ‘return’
from these paths, putting them securely
back on course’
Such models will help you construct
powerful arguments
But beware
We’re subject to powerful cultural magnets
(a) psychological/epistemological confusion
be more tolerant
be less critical
(b) non-judgementalism
‘The ethos of circle time is positive, encouraging and non-judgemental’ (Bliss & Tetley)
‘Aim: To discuss how remaining non-judgemental and open-minded is an important mentoring quality’
(Teachernet.gov.uk)
‘Listen carefully to what everyone has to say valuing all contributions non-judgementally so that young
people from different financial background are able to contribute to discussions on an equal footing and with
equal confidence’ (DfEE)
(c) instrumentalism
critical thinking skills v. argued substantive judgements
consider Fagin teaching Oliver the skills of stealing (‘nimbleness’ ‘retreating from sight when closing upon a
victim’ ‘extraordinary rapidity of movement’ ‘the knack of accurate timing’ ‘the manner of accidental
stumbling’) but NEVER the substantive issue – the value - of stealing
consider the National Standards for Headteachers (‘maintaining effective partnerships’ ‘shaping the future’
‘create a productive learning community’ ‘ensuring that the school moves forward’ ‘carry the vision forward’
‘the pursuit of excellence’ ‘develop and maintain effective strategies’)
‘Substance-free’ argument is common but what does it hide?
And remember, even knowing all there
is to know about argument…
One further point:
Will you put the ‘I’ back into your argument?
‘It has been argued that…’
OR
‘I will argue that…’
This has nothing to do with
‘Personally I believe/think…’
Gunter Kress
‘Academic writing, professional writing of various kinds,
official writing, all were marked by a strict observation of
this difference. The use of the agentless passive – ‘it has
been claimed that…’ – was one such marker in academic
writing; another was the use of highly complex sentence
syntax. All these are now beginning to disappear, at
different pace in different domains. So, for example, in
some disciplines, and in some universities in the Englishspeaking world, it is no longer required to write theses or
academic articles using such forms.’
Deborah Cameron
‘Consider the text you are reading now. From the moment I
began to compose it, it was shaped by all kinds of rules and
norms: the rules of standard English grammar and spelling,
the norms of appropriate diction and tone, as well as ideas
about style that go beyond correctness or appropriateness to
a more aesthetic sphere of ‘elegance’ (e.g. be brief, be
specific, avoid jargon and cliché). I cannot claim I always
observe all the relevant prescriptions, and sometime indeed I
deliberately flout them (for instance, as this paragraph shows,
I have little time for the traditional rule ‘avoid the first person
singular’). But when I make this sort of choice I am aware I
may be called to account for it.’
Richard Andrews
‘There is often debate about whether the personal pronoun ‘I’
can be used in an assignment of whether it is best to use the
passive voice and avoid any personal reference altogether. My
own view is that the use of the first person pronoun is
acceptable in most cases, especially if a personal view is
included or called for in the assignment… Having said that the
first person pronoun is acceptable in some circumstances, it
ought to be said that clear and uncluttered expression of what
is to be said is a helpful stylistic quality. Some students’
writing is overlaid with adjectives that convey enthusiasm or
some other feeling; it is often useful to go through the draft of
such an essay and think hard about whether these adjectives
are necessary.’ (2010) Argumentation in Higher Education
And so:
1. Don’t confuse the interpersonal aspect of
arguing with the philosophical/academic need
for it
2. Consider building your argument on a model like
Toulmin’s or Kaufer & Geisler’s
3. Don’t avoid the value aspects of your argument.
If you can’t see clearly where the values are it’ll
loose direction and become overly ‘descriptive’
4. Will you / Dare you (ask your tutor!) put the ‘I’
back into your argument?