Argumentative Models

1. Argumentative Models Toulmin Model and Moralist’s, Lawyer’s, Psychologist’s, and Forensics' Views

2. Argument has three triads The first triad of his model consists of three basic elements: 1. A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the proposition or assertion an arguer wants another to accept. The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?“ There are three basic types of claims: fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken 2. Grounds refers to the proof or evidence an arguer offers.   Grounds answers the questions, "What is your proof?" or "How come?" or "Why?" Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning. grounds can be based on: evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof, source credibility, authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so analysis and reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof 3. The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds. The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the underlying reasoning that makes sense of the claim in light of the grounds. The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim example: "Muffin is running a temperature. I'll bet she has an infection." warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an infection Warrants can be based on: source credibility, authority; reason-giving, induction, deduction; emotional or motivational appeals; free speech, right to know, fairness, etc. Toulmin Model

3. Toulmin Model • The second triad of the Toulmin model involves three additional elements: • 4. Backing provides additional justification for the warrant. • Backing usually consists of evidence to support the type of reasoning employed by the warrant. • 5. The qualifier states the degree of force or probability to be attached to the claim. • The qualifier states how sure the arguer is about his/her claim • 6. The rebuttal acknowledges exceptions or limitations to the argument. • The rebuttal admits to those circumstances or situations where the argument would not hold.

4. Based upon moral reasoning, that is appealing to the ethics of the reader Has a variety of purposes, particularly for guidance in conduct When writing from a moralist view, the writer has to remember to appeal to their own and the reader’s morality stance on a particular issue. They do not ridicule or persecute those that do not share their view, nor do they “bash” their points across. There are 2 kinds of moral reasoning: amoral and immoral Amorality consists of conduct of no moral significance. That is, conduct not to be evaluated by reference to moral considerations. Choosing between 3 items to buy There is nothing moral or immoral about making this decision Immorality is conduct contrary to what morality requires or prohibits. Hence a person is reasoning immorality whenever he or she is contemplating judgment or conduct that violates or disregards some relevant rule. Moralist’s View

5. Lawyer’s View • Provides relevant facts and previously decided court cases that support position • Straightforward, but not an open- book • Facts that would harm their case or argument are excluded • Tends to bend every rule for benefit • Appeals to the logical side of the reader • Appears to be balanced, but it is only an illusion • Writing style is professional and technical (use of legal jargon)

6. Psychologist’s View (Rogerian) • Based on Carl Rogers' work in psychology, Rogerian argument begins by assuming that a willing writer can find middle or common ground with a willing reader. Instead of promoting the adversarial relationship that traditional or classical argument typically sets up between reader and writer, Rogerian argument assumes that if reader and writer can both find common ground about a problem, they are more likely to find a solution to that problem. Based on these assumptions, Rogerian argument develops along quite different lines than a traditional argument often does. • In the introduction to a Rogerian argument, the writer presents the problem, typically pointing out how both writer and reader are affected by the problem. Rather than presenting an issue that divides reader and writer, or a thesis that demands agreement (and in effect can be seen as an attack on a reader who holds an opposing view), the Rogerian argument does not begin with the writer's position at all. • Next, the writer describes as fairly as possible--typically in language as neutral as possible--the reader's perceived point of view on the problem. Only if the writer can represent the reader's perspective accurately will the reader begin to move toward compromise, and so this section of the argument is crucial to the writer's credibility. (Even though writers might be tempted to use this section of the Rogerian argument to manipulate readers, that strategy usually backfires when readers perceive the writer's insincerity. Good will is crucial to the success of a Rogerian argument.) Moreover, as part of the writer's commitment to expressing the reader's perspective on the problem, the writer acknowledges the circumstances and contexts in which the reader's position or perspective is valid.

7. Rogerian… • In the next main chunk of the Rogerian argument, the writer then presents fairly and accurately his or her own perspective or position on the problem. This segment depends, again, on neutral but clear language so that the reader perceives the fair-mindedness of the writer's description. The segment is, however, a major factor in whether or not the writer is ultimately convincing, and so key evidence supports and develops this section of the argument. Like the description of the reader's perspective, this part of the argument also includes a description of the contexts or circumstances in which the writer's position is valid. • The Rogerian essay closes not by asking readers to give up their own positions on the problem but by showing how the reader would benefit from moving toward the writer's position. In other words, the final section of the Rogerian argument lays out possible ways to compromise or alternative solutions to the problem that would benefit both reader and writer under more circumstances than either perspective alone accounts for. • Rogerian approaches are particularly useful for emotionally charged, highly divisive issues. The Rogerian approach typically downplays the emotional in favor of the rational so that people of good will can find solutions to common problems. But no argument, Rogerian or otherwise, will succeed unless the writer understands the reader. Rogerian argument is especially dependent on audience analysis because the writer must present the reader's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly.

8. Formal debate Does not attempt to solve anything or get the truth The debate is used to promote only thought and questioning about a particular matter There are no answers! One side is “pro” and the other is “con” The basic structure of the forensics' view occurs in three parts, writer’s are only concerned with two The constructive phase: the debaters construct their cases and develop their arguments The rebuttal: present responses and also present their final summary Use technical language, visual aids, quotations, and professionalism Forensics' View