INTRO TO ARGUMENT Mr. Baskin. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ARGUMENT? It’s NOT a fight or quarrel. Argue – connotes anger and hostility Not the case. Argument.

INTRO TO ARGUMENTMr. Baskin

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ARGUMENT? It’s NOT a fight or quarrel.

Argue – connotes anger and hostility

Not the case. Argument is meant to be a productive

activity, involving high levels of critical thinking and deep inquiry.

Instead of a fight, imagine a group of people hashing out solutions to difficult problems.

IS IT A DEBATE, LIKE ON THE TV?

Yes and no. Debate can be argument, but its focus on combat and

“winners vs. losers” doesn’t support our idea of inquiry and collaboration.

You can hold positions, argue, and win debates about them, but never truly develop an opinion for yourself.

2 KINDS OF ARGUMENTS

Explicit The argument is directly stated and

supported with reasonable evidence. Ex. Video games cause violent behavior. A

study from Blah Who Cares University has shown an increased level of adrenal hormones in kids who play Call of Duty more than 15 minutes a day. This rise in hormones contributes to a tendency toward violent outbursts and aggressive behaviors.

2 KINDS OF ARGUMENTS

Implicit Not a formal argument, may be deceptive or not look like an argument at

all. But, it still presents a position. E.g. T-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.

An additional example—the phthalate controversy. Implicit vs. Explicit Arguments

Any argument, whether implicit or explicit, tries to influence the audience’s stanceon an issue, moving the audience toward the arguer’s claim. Arguments work onus psychologically as well as cognitively, triggering emotions as well as thoughtsand ideas. How would you describe the differences in the way that the poster andtoy display and the letter from Sullivan work on us ?

THE DEFINING FEATURES OF ARGUMENT Note, these are the features of explicit

argument—what we will be studying! We need two basic elements to call

something an argument:1. A set of two or more conflicting 1. A set of two or more conflicting assertions- (Chocolate ice cream assertions- (Chocolate ice cream is the best! NO! Vanilla!)is the best! NO! Vanilla!)

2.An attempt to resolve the 2.An attempt to resolve the conflict through an appeal to conflict through an appeal to reason (Well, vanilla is superior reason (Well, vanilla is superior because it contains fewer artificial because it contains fewer artificial ingredients, making it the “purer” ingredients, making it the “purer” and healthier choice in iced and healthier choice in iced creams, sir. In addition, Alton creams, sir. In addition, Alton Brown believes vanilla ice cream Brown believes vanilla ice cream is better, and he knows a great is better, and he knows a great deal about food. Good day!)deal about food. Good day!)

THE FIRST FEATURE

1. Argument requires justification of its claims.

A SCENARIO (PERHAPS FAMILIAR?)

Consider the following dialogue: YOUNG PERSON (racing for the front door while putting coat

on): Bye. See you later. PARENT: Whoa! What time are you planning on coming home? YOUNG PERSON (coolly, hand still on doorknob): I’m sure we

discussed this earlier. I’ll be home around 2 A.M. (The second sentence, spoken very rapidly, is barely audible.)

PARENT (mouth tightening): We did not discuss this earlier and you re not staying out till two in the morning. You’ll be home at twelve.

At this point in the exchange, we have a quarrel, not an argument. Quarrelers exchange antagonistic assertions without any attempt to support them rationally. If the dialogue never gets past the Yes-you-will/No-I-won’t stage, it either remains a quarrel or degenerates into a fight. Both are ultimately unproductive, as you know.

Let us say, however, that the dialogue takes the following turn: YOUNG PERSON (tragically): But I’m seventeen years old!

AHA!

Now we have an argument. Not a good one, but it’s a start.

We now have a reason why young person should be allowed to stay out late-they’re 17 years old.

Note that this argument relies on an assumption (that the young person obviously believes)—namely that 17 year olds are mature enough to make decisions about curfews and whatnot. This assumption—unstated—may not be shared or understood by the parent.

THE RESPONSE

Now that we have engaged in a basic argument, the other party must respond to the reasons presented.

Perhaps the parent invokes accepted authority (you’ll be home at 12 and that’s that, mister!)

Or provides a reason of their own (I pay the bills around here, and you’ll do as I say!)

To continue on as an argument now, we need something more.

EFFECTIVE ARGUMENTS

Effective Arguments require clarification and support

On the surface, Young Person’s reason is absurd—the parent likely knows the age of the child.

“I’m 17” ≠ ”I’m mature enough to set my own curfew”

To continue, Young Person must now support their assumption adequately, anticipating questions/defenses from the Parent.

CONTINUED

For example: What is the legal status of a 17 year old in this

state? What is the level of psychological maturity of

young person, compared to chronological maturity?

What is Young Person’s track record? Each question forces Young Person to

evaluate their position and clarify the initial, cloudy assumption that prompted the reason.

Ultimately, Young Person needs Parent to re-examine their OWN assumptions about the needs of 17 year olds.

HOWEVER

Rather than dig too deep or confront difficult reasoning, they may shift to a different line of thought, or do so simply to provide additional support.

“All my friends stay out until 2 AM!” Assumption: Our family’s rules should

mirror the rules of other families. Parent might respond: “I never stayed out

that late when I was your age!” Assumption: Our family rules today should

follow the rules of an earlier generation.

As Young Person and Parent listen to each other’s points of view (and begin realizing why their initial arguments have not persuaded their intended audience), both parties find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to examine their own beliefs and to justify assumptions that they have taken for granted.

Here we encounter one of the earliest senses of the term to argue, which is to clarify. As an arguer begins to clarify her own position on an issue, she also begins to clarify her audience’s position. Such clarification helps the arguer see how she might accommodate her audience’s views, perhaps by adjusting her own position or by developing reasons that appeal to her audience’s values. Thus Young Person might suggest an argument like this:

NOW THAT’S A REASON.

“I should be allowed to stay out until two on a trial basis because I need enough space to demonstrate my maturity and show you I won’t get into trouble.”

WHY IT MIGHT WORK.

Assumption: Good to give teenagers freedom to demonstrate maturity.

It also appeals to the Parent’s values (most parents want to see kids mature).

Also, the qualifier “on a trial basis” reduces threat and may lead to more productive discussion.

IN SHORT

Arguments force us to clarify our reasons and provide justifications that can be examined rationally.

It also leads us to our next feature of argument…

2. ARGUMENT IS PROCESS AND PRODUCT Argument can be viewed as a process in with two or more

parties seek the best solution to a question or problem. Can also be a product, each product being a contribution

to the conversation at any given moment.

SITUATION DETERMINES THE PRODUCT

In informal settings, this product is usually short, whatever is used during turns in the conversation.

More formally, an orally delivered product might be a short impromptu speech, or something more defined with a powerpoint or presentation.

IT’S THE SAME IN WRITING

Discussions can be informal, like email, texting or message boards, evolving as the conversation continues,

Or it can exist in an article, and the written argument (a product) becomes a part of the conversation (the process) for the reader.

3. ARGUMENT COMBINES TRUTH SEEKING AND PERSUASION

Writers often move back and forth between these opposite ends.

Questions like “what is the best solution to the problem” or “what will best persuade them to think as I do?”

This importance shifts during different phases of the development of a paper.

A CONTINUUM OF ARGUMENTS

Most of the time, truth seeking and persuasion intermingle. You can’t hope to persuade if you don’t know the truth

behind the arguments, in short. We must become comfortable recognizing what mode we are

in and how it suits us. Often it is whether you are focusing on subject or audience.

THE PROBLEM OF “TRUTH”

Is it your job to speak the truth, or to “win?” According to Socrates, the “good person’s” duty is not to

win arguments, but to pursue the truth.

In action: http://ethics.npr.org/

THE SOPHIST VIEW

IN the view of the Sophists (people trained to teach others how to win arguments), truth was determined by who was in power.

Viewed truth as a moving target, and a fiction. In essence, they were relativists. In many circles “Sophistry” now equals

“trickery” because of its slippery beliefs about truth.

What do you think?

THIS IS NOT EASY!

Not about the “right answer.” We can’t pin down truth as easily as perhaps Socrates

wanted us to. Still—it is the search that matters. Looking deeper and

making a “reasonable claim” about your thoughts. It about “best” answers, not “right” ones.