Arguing Generatively and Persuasively

1. Arguing Generatively and Persuasively Charles Paine, Professor, University of New Mexico Richard Johnson-Sheehan, Professor, Purdue University

2. Welcome: Arguing Today • Controlling metaphor for argument: “Argument is War” • Consequences of this metaphor • “Yes it is” “No it isn’t” quarrels • Battles of sound bites and gotchas • Derisions of alternative views • Silence • Refusal to participate • If argument is a battle of attrition, why would anyone willingly participate if they could avoid it?

3. Are Arguments Really Wars? • No. Of course not. • One side of an argument is almost never declared the winner or loser. • The need to attack or defend is the exception, not the norm. • People are rarely persuaded to change their minds about controversial topics. • Great majority of arguments are really conversations among people who agree more than they disagree. • So, why do we primarily teach students how to “defend” their claims, “confront” the ideas of others, “attack” weak points, and “reinforce” their positions.

4. Origins of the “Argument = War” Metaphor

5. Walter Ong on the “Litigious Greek World” [A]n assembly, a getting together to discourse, was rather essentially a mobilization for a contest. The assembly came together to debate, to match pros and cons, to struggle, not fatally, but seriously and in dead earnest, man against man. —Fighting for Life (43-44)

6. Here’s the Point Argument as war is deeply embedded in our students’ consciousness and communication. Helping students re-conceptualize the nature of argument requires more than just telling them. In general, today’s argument textbooks are based on the “argument is war” metaphor, usually referring to other kinds of argument as “alternative forms of argument.”

7. On “Textbook Argument” A. Abby Knoblauch, “A Textbook Argument: Definitions of Argument in Leading Composition Textbooks,” CCC 2011. These textbook author-editors […] contrast argument marked by quarreling, fighting, winning, defeating opposition, and working against others with mature reasoning, civil conversation, mediation, and truth seeking. […]But a closer look at argument-based textbooks reveals a much more traditional definition of argument, even in those texts in which the author-editors seem to be consciously moving away from [“argument as quarreling”] definition[s].

8. What Should Students Learn about Argument? How to listen carefully to the views of others How to read closely, so they understand what others are saying How to critically analyze and assess the merits of all sides of an issue. How to weigh the available evidence How to figure out what they themselves believe and why they believe it How to express their views clearly to others

9. What Do We Really Want Students to Learn? Properly taught, argumentation becomes a “habit of mind” that our students can transfer to their other college courses, their careers, and their civic lives. Properly taught, argumentation should also prepare them to live, work, and succeed in the highly networked and multimodal worlds that they are entering. A new approach to argument seems especially important in a quickly evolving world of virtual classrooms and workplaces, social networking, and new media, where arguments are much more dialogic and cooperative.

10. Argument Awareness in a Nutshell Argument, like all communication, is shaped by particular contexts, purposes, and audiences. The qualities of a “good” argument are always context specific, and these qualities—what counts as good argument—are shaped by the values, needs, goals, and ideologies.

11. Argument Awareness as a “Threshold Concept” A threshold concept is “akin to passing through a portal” that leads to “previously inaccessible ways of thinking about something.” (Meyers and Land, 9)

12. Threshold Concepts Are. . . Transformative—shift how learners see the world Integrative—exposes previously hidden interrelatedness of something Irreversible—there is no going back, no “unlearning” Liminal—students move toward and through them Troublesome—learners may resist them because they require them to question previous perspectives

13. “Troublesome” Knowledge: Getting Stuck (Meyer, Land, and Baillie, Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning, 2010 Insights gained by learners as they cross thresholds can be exhilarating but might also be unsettling, requiring an uncomfortable shift in identity, or, paradoxically, a sense of loss.

14. How to Help Students Move Forward

15. The Spectrum of Argument All arguments have both generative and persuasive qualities. Some, however, are more generative in nature, while others are more persuasive.

16. A Better Approach to Argument Generative Arguments, or “power with” arguments Persuasive Arguments, or “power over” arguments

17. Generative Arguments Generative Approach (Power With) Generative arguments are conversations that happen within groups, teams, or networks, both large and small. In generative arguments, people discuss issues, generate new ideas, share experiences, and strive toward consensus in an open-ended way. These kinds of arguments include discussions, team projects, negotiations, brainstorming sessions, planning meetings, and social networking. They happen in meeting rooms, in cafes, through e-mail or blogs, on Facebook or Twitter, and other places where people gather to talk about issues. Generative arguments are sometimes called “power-with”  arguments because the people involved are working together to build a mutual understanding and sort out their differences.

18. Persuasive Arguments Persuasive Approach (Power Over) Persuasive arguments happen when an individual, a team, or an organization is trying to influence other people to believe something or take specific actions. Persuasive arguments include advertisements, opinion essays, legal cases, political speeches, sales pitches, business proposals, recommendation reports, and sermons. These arguments happen in political events, news websites, law courts, legislatures, corporate boardrooms, and on television. They are sometimes called “power-over”  arguments because the writer or speaker is attempting to exert power over others with words and images.

19. Strategies for Generative Arguments • Strategy 1: Build a sense of identification. • Strategy 2: Frame the issue to your advantage. • Strategy 3: Tell interesting stories. • Strategy 4: Negotiate disagreements

20. Generative Strategy 1: Identification Show others that you share or at least respect their values, upbringing, experiences, or status. Use a shared problem to build a sense of identity. Avoid scapegoating or pandering.

21. Generative Strategy 2: Framing Image Credit: Ian Webster Understand how the argument is already being framed. Frame the argument in positive terms according to your and your audience’s values. Reframing the argument: avoid adopting negative frames that cast your argument in an unfavorable light. Use conceptual metaphors to frame or reframe the argument.

22. Generative Strategy 3: Narrative Use funny, tragic, or instructive stories to make your point. Use anecdotes to describe or clarify important concepts. Illustrate with hypothetical examples. Use fables or parables to tie into larger cultural themes.

23. Generative Strategy 4: Negotiation Describe the problem as fairly as possible. Demonstrate that you understand and value the opinions of others. Identify situations in which others’ positions are valid. Identify situations in which your position is valid. Explain how both sides would benefit if elements from both sides were adopted.

24. Striving for Consensus, Valuing Dissensus Generative rhetoric teaches students the value of “power with” forms of argumentation. The aim of generative rhetoric is to use the ongoing conversation to strive for consensus, not necessarily to reach consensus. Dissensus, or dissent, should be valued and encouraged because it urges people to speak up, be creative, develop awareness, and work things out. An ongoing conversation is the signal of success. Silence and being silenced signal a failure of generative rhetoric.

25. Strategies for Persuasive Arguments Strategy 1: Support claims with reasoning, authority, and emotion. Strategy 2: Support claims with existing evidence. Strategy 3: Use commonplaces to structure the argument. Strategy 4: Avoid fallacious arguments.

26. Persuasive Strategy 1: logos, ethos, pathos Reasoning (logos)—using logical statements and examples to reason with the audience Authority (ethos)—using your reputation or the authority of others to demonstrate that you are knowledgeable, fair, and practical. Emotion (pathos)—using emotional appeals to influence the audience to sympathize with your cause or reject another point of view.

27. Persuasive Strategy 2:Gather Existing Evidence Gather electronic, print, and empirical evidence. Gather images and create graphics Evaluate evidence to determine whether it is Sufficient, Typical, Accurate, and Reliable (STAR method). Photo Credit: Charlie DeBoyace

28. Persuasive Strategy 3: Use Commonplaces Asserting commonplaces—definition, negation, two-sides, comparison and contrast, classification, cause and effect, division, narration, proposal. Responding commonplaces—better and worse, qualification, counterstatement, refutation, concession, absorption, restatement

29. Persuasive Strategy 4: Avoid Fallacies False or weak premises—bandwagon, post hoc reasoning, slippery slope, hasty generalization, weak analogy, false authority. Irrelevance—ad hominem, red herring, non sequitur, tuquoque. Ambiguity—circular reasoning, begging the question, straw man, false dichotomy, false choice. Note: The use of a fallacy doesn’t make an argument wrong. It simply signals a potential weak point in the argument that should be challenged and explored further.

30. Listening Carefully, Influencing Others Persuasive rhetoric teaches students how argument is used to exert “power over” others. The aim of persuasive rhetoric is to influence people to believe something or take a specific kind of action. Persuasive argument should be flexible and responsive to other viewpoints and alternative ideas. Success is the ability to “find the available means of persuasion in each particular case.”

31. Genres of Argument Genres are meeting places where writers and their audience come together to make meaning together.

32. Genres of Argument • Description Arguments • Comparison Arguments • Causal Analyses • Visual Essays • Narrative Arguments • Review Arguments • Evaluation Arguments • Commentary Arguments • Refutation Arguments • Proposal Arguments Research Papers and Reports Generative Persuasive

33. Why Use Genres to Teach Argument? Genres help students learn rhetorical strategies and patterns that will transfer to advanced courses across the curriculum and into their careers. Genres show students how to argue effectively in both generative and persuasive rhetorical situations. Genres are easy to learn, immediately applicable, and highly assessable.

34. Thresholds and Transfer Elizabeth Wardle, “What Is Transfer”? A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers, ed. Rita Malenczyk (Parlor Press, 2013) • Teach flexible approaches to rhetorical problem solving • Incorporate strategies that encourage transfer • Teaching concepts and heuristics, not rigid rules • Teaching students to actively self-monitor • Teaching rhetorical awareness • Using metaphors and analogies

35. Thank You and Questions The teaching of argument needs to adjust to university, workplace, and civic situations that are becoming more networked, dynamic, and fluid. We believe the genre approach in which students learn to argue generatively and persuasively is the best way to teach argument. Charles Paine, cpaine@unm.edu Richard Johnson-Sheehan, rjohnso@purdue.edu