Introduction to Argumentation
Objectives:
Students will have a basic understanding of the
history of formal argumentation.
Students will compare and contrast disagreement
and contradiction to argumentation and debate.
Students will summarize the definition of an
argument.
The Argument Clinic
No it isn’t…Yes it is…
An formal argument is NOT
Just disagreement
 Just a contradiction
 The automatic gain-saying of whatever
your opponent says.

An Argument can be…
A contrary position
 Supporting a different point of view
 Emotional

Where does it come from
Socrates and his method
 The Dialectic- discovering and testing
knowledge through questions and
answers.
 Aristotle observed persuasion.
 Believed that diction, and speaking directly
too, were also needed.

Rhetoric
Rhetoric concerns the audience
 The study of how messages influence
people.
 Aristotle’s definition- “the faculty or skill
of discovering the available means of
persuasion in a given case.”
 **Symbolic Persuasive Communication
 Everything is Rhetoric

Logic
Organized principles of reasoning.
 Associated with mathematical reasoning
 Socially accepted truths
 Evidence
 Observable data.

Forensics
Seeking truth
 We do this by utilizing Dialectic, Rhetoric
and Logic
 This is the foundation of argumentation
and debate.
 There are many Truths to be found.

Argumentation
The field of study where these concepts
work together.
 Intellectual Process
 Collective series of statements to
establish a specific proposition
 Argumentation is the process of
making claims and using reasoning and
evidence to support the truthfulness or
validity of those claims.

Debate is Different from
Argumentation
Has a winner
 Has rules
 Is focused on the audience not the
opponent.
 Has many positions
 Requires skill and passion

The Beauty of Argument
Aristotle
The Man-Considered the Father of
Rhetoric & Persuasion
 First known person to really study and
write about the elements of persuasion
 Identified 3 Elements

◦ Ethos
◦ Pathos
◦ Logos
Ethos-Establishing credibility
One’s personal power or credibility
 How can you build your credibility?

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Personal Appearance
Smooth beginnings
Credentials of Experts-Quotes
Enthusiasm
Thorough preparation
Trustworthiness
3 types of Ethos
Perceived-Look believable
 Derived-Sound Believable
 Terminal- Be Believable

Pathos-emotional response

Appealing to emotions
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Pictures and graphics
Emotional Stories
Propaganda Devices
Addressing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Analyzing audience
Logos- reasoning

The process of drawing logical
conclusions and formulating arguments
from evidence
◦
◦
◦
◦
Associated with mathematical reasoning
Socially accepted truths
Evidence
Observable data.
Logos- Logical Reasoning Cont
2 types of reasoning
 Inductive Reasoning

◦ Starts with specific facts or arguments and
then leads to a conclusion.

Deductive Reasoning
◦ Starts with an argument or main premise then
produces specific evidence to support it.
Ice Cream Debate
Analyzing your audience
Build Rapport
 Tell a good and effective “story”
 Understand how to make connections
 Strike a balance between effective
argumentation and story telling.
 Don’t burden the judge with jargon and
technicalities.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos
Ethos and Pathos are just as important as
logos.
 Your case, arguments, evidence and
reasoning are logos.
 Your professional dress, confidence, poise,
courtesy and ethics build your
ethos/credibility.
 The way you build connections with your
audience on an emotional level is your
pathos.

Reasoning
The Toulmin Model
 Claim
 Data
 Warrant

Toulmin Model of Argumentation
Claim: The conclusion of the argument or the
statement the speaker wishes the audience to
believe.
 Data: The foundation or basis for the claim, the
support. The evidence.
 Warrant: The reasoning that authorizes the
inferential leap from the grounds to the claim.
 Citation: Giving credit to the source of quoted
material. ALWAYS presented in this format –
Authors name, Date of publication, Title of
Publication.

Reasoning
 Claim
 What
you are trying to prove;
thesis statement
Reasoning
 Data
 Materials
used to convince an
audience
 Evidence
Facts
Statistics
Testimony from experts
 Motivational
appeals
 Appeals to the values or attitudes of the audience
Reasoning
Warrant
 Inference, assumption, belief, or
principle that connects support to
claim.
 Many times the warrant is implied
rather than expressed directly.


Take a closer look at Toulmin
Example
Claim: School uniforms should be required.
 Data with Source: According to Wendell
Anderson 2002 school uniforms decrease
violence by 23% in urban schools.
 Warrant: A school should be a safe place.
Anything a school can do to decrease
violence would increase safety. We should
strive to promote safe schools.


Source: Anderson,Wendell. School Dress Codes and Uniform
Policies. Policy Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, 2002. ERIC document ED 471 528.
Make your claim!
Resolved: That, on balance, the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 has improved
academic achievement in the United
States.
 Choose to support or oppose this
resolution
 On a sheet of paper make a list of claims
to advocate your position.

Example
Resolved: That, on balance, social
networking Web sites have a positive
impact on the United States.
 Support

◦ Social Networking promotes technology
integration.
◦ Social Networking improves communication
◦ Social networking creates and supports a
global community
Making an Argument
An argument is just one claim in support
of a proposition or resolution.
 It must also include reasoning and
examples.
 You must know what your opponent is
saying to make an effective argument.

Credible Research







Find accurate and up to date information
Establish credibility
Credibility- The quality of being believable.
Never Lie, plagiarize, or make up sources.
Plagiarism- using someone else’s words as if they
were your own.
Source Cite EVERYTHING!
Citation- giving credit to the source of quoted
material.
**Tips on doing research





Start with general ideas and move toward more
specific.
The computer is a machine, it can’t read your mind.
Think about the kind of answer you want: quote,
story, statistics
Remember you don’t have to use every filler word:
of, in, the…
Investigate your sources, make sure they are
reliable. A blog is NOT reliable.
Source Citation

In text citation


“according to Aristotle…” “In an article from Time
Magazine…”
Works cited
◦ You must include Authors name, Publication
date, and the Title of the magazine, book,
newspaper or article.
◦ A website alone is NOT a citation.
It’s true, it’s right, it does.


In debate we make many different types of
claims
Propositions of Fact
◦ asserting the existence, occurrence or
relationship of something.
◦ Also used to define things.

Propositions of Value
◦ asserting the rightness, wrongness, goodness or
badness, or usefulness of something that exists or
occurs.

Propositions of Policy
◦ Calling for or opposing specific courses of action.
There are 3 styles of
Competitive Debate.
Policy
 Lincoln-Douglas
 Public Forum


Each has it’s own unique set of rules and
standards but they are all based in a
foundation of formal argumentation.
Resolution: The Subject of the
Argument
A single statement capturing the
substance of the controversy.
 Should be recognized by all participants in
a dispute
 the presence of an unclear resolution or
multiple resolutions indicate unclear
argument and predicts trouble.

Types of Resolutions
Resolution
of Fact
◦ involve description
◦ concern that which, theoretically, can be
described and verified independently.
◦ May relate to the past, present, or future.
Resolved: Aliens
exist.
Types of Resolutions

Resolutions of Definition
◦ involve interpretation
◦ categorize concepts
◦ interpretation is very important because
definitions are not neutral

Resolved: Abortion is murder.
Types of Resolutions
Resolutions
of Value
◦ involve judgment
 appraisal or evaluation
 evaluation can be absolute or comparative
 can involve instrumental or terminal values
Resolved: When
in conflict, academic
freedom in U.S. high schools ought to
be valued above community standards.
Types of Resolutions
Resolutions
of Policy
◦ involve action
◦ assertions about what should be done
◦ characteristic of deliberative bodies
 I.e. Congress
Resolved: That
the United States
Federal Government should establish
an ocean policy substantially increasing
protection of marine natural resources.
Debate Styles
Policy
 Lincoln-Douglas
 Public Forum

Competitive Forensics
Rules and regs
 Time limits
 Idaho Debate code
 Tournament expectations

Analyzing a resolution
Identify key terms
 Define terms
 Brainstorm
 Analyze


Resolved: That the United States should
intervene in another nation's struggle for
democracy.
Analyzing a resolution
Definition
 Both parties must be discussing the
same issue

 If the topic is justice, is it individual justice or
community justice?
 When discussing the Social Contract, is it
Hobbes’, Rawl’s, Rousseau’s, or Locke’s?
Issues
Understanding Definitions
 Is the interpretation relevant?
 Is the interpretation fair?
 How should we choose among competing
interpretations?

Issues
Each type of resolution implies certain
issues that must be addressed.
 Issues in debate are questions that are
inherent in a controversy and vital to the
success of the resolution.

Issues
 Resolution of Fact

What is the criterion for discovering
the truth?
 Criterion: a standard by which to determine the
correctness of a judgment or decision.

Has the criterion been satisfied?
Issues
Resolutions of value
 Is the value truly good or bad as alleged?
 Which among competing values should be
preferred?
 Has the value been properly applied to
the specific situation?

Issues
Resolutions of Policy
 Is there a problem?
 Where is the credit or blame due?
 Will the proposal solve the problem?
 On balance, will the proposal be better?

Responsibilities AKA Burdens
Presumption
 Burden of Proof
 Burden of Rejoinder

Burdens
Presumption
 determines who must initiate the dispute

 those who wish to see a change
Presumption lies with the status quo
 Status Quo: existing state of affairs at a
given time
 establishes the minimum threshold of
proof that is required

Keeping the Argument Going
Presumption
 Preoccupation of ground. An accepted
idea, concept, or procedure must stand
good until some sufficient reason exists
to dislodge it.

 Presumed innocent until proven guilty
Keeping the Argument Going
Presumption provides the standard for
decision
 Strategic advantage to presumption
 Advocates of the resolution attempt to
seize presumption.

◦ Define the situation as a crisis
◦ Offer the first proposal
◦ Associate their position with a preferred
value
Keeping the Argument Going

Sometimes presumption is stipulated
◦ environmental impact statements
◦ rules of law
◦ Rescission agreements (In legal agreements
Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction)

Strength of presumption is relative to the
consequences of being wrong.
Keeping the Argument Going
Burden of Proof
 The opposite of presumption
 The advocates of the resolution have the
ultimate responsibility to support one’s
position on the resolution.
 the advocates of the resolution must
cast a sufficient amount of doubt on the
on the status quo that those defending
the status quo must make an answer.

Keeping the Argument Going
 The
burden of proof lies with any
advocate making a claim.

Advocates must present proof of a
needed change.
 prima facie case
 one that on first glance raises significant question about
the status quo.
Keeping the Argument Going
Advocates of the resolution attempt to seize
presumption.
 Define the situation as a crisis

 Our economy is rocketing downward, to avoid another Great
Depression, we must approve Bush’s tax plan now.

Offer the first proposal
 The Virginia Plan at the Constitutional Convention

Associate their position with a preferred value
 Thousands of Iraqi children die every year because of US imposed
sanctions. These children are innocent of any wrongdoing; we have a
moral obligation to change our policy and save these innocents.
Keeping the Argument Going
Burden of rejoinder/clash- to keep the
discussion going
 Presents counter arguments
 Shifts back and forth between arguers

 keeps argument going
 prevents simple repetition of a position without
extension
Keeping the Argument Going
Burden of rejoinder
 Obligation to find faulty reasoning or
respond to an argument.
 Met by offering proof

 proof offers support for a claim, but does not ensure
its truth
 Proof is reasonable if it would be taken
seriously by a broad and diverse group
of listeners exercising their best critical
judgment.
Presentation & Communication
Clarity and Articulation
 Good Personal Hygiene and Professional
Dress
 Effective Hand Gestures
 Eye Contact
 Talking to the judge NOT at them
 Summarizing and Crystalizing

Other Elements of Reasoning
Logic
 Inductive
 Deductive
 Fallacies

Other Elements of Reasoning
Language
 Use of jargon
 Words selected for connotation
 Analogies
 Metaphors and Similes
