comm 105c intro to argumentation midterm

A form of instrumental communication relying on reasoning and proof to influence belief or behavior through the use of spoken or written messages

An attempt to move an audience to accept or identify with a particular point of view
The reasoning part of argumentation
Appeals to both emotions and logic

the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion

Rhetoric – argument as strategy and process
Dialectic – argument as conversation in which people offer and analyze reasons
Logic – argument as mathematical equation, emphasis on proof and reasoning

Moral choices a person makes regarding her or his behavior
Teleological ethics – based on outcomes or ends
Deontological ethics – based on absolutes or rules that separate right from wrong

The obligation of the advocate to contest the ground by offering arguments that are logically sufficient to challenge presumption

One that “at first sight” is sufficient to justify changing belief or behavior

Advocate has responsibility of presenting prima facie case, which justifies changing belief or behavior
The form and the content of the argument determines face value of an advocate’s case
Case must be both topical and inherent
Presentation of case causes suspension of presumption unless it is successfully challenged

worth or importance of the argument

the topic to be argued

demonstrate that the nature of the problem is such that it can only be overcome by a change in behavior or belief

A statement that identifies the argumentative ground and points to a change in a belief or behavior

Regarding what has happened, what is happening, or what will happen

Good or bad, right or wrong

What should or should not be done

have more than two meanings

lack clear meaning

jargon or specialized words belonging to a particular field or profession

one nonexistent in current vocabulary

– those invented when a convenient term does not exist

An opinion, conclusion

Proof required for a rational person to accept the claim as true or probable

Shows why if one accepts grounds one must accept the claim
Inferential leap
Norms or rationalities of a culture

Explicit information to establish the reliability of the warrant

Shows the degree of force arguer believes the claim possesses
Shows exceptions or instances that disconfirm your case

Means of accommodating the limitations of the claim

Conclusion you draw about what you believe the proposition means based on the information contained in your definition of key terms

Advocate

Opponent

Determined by which side shows greater skill or better arguments

Rules

Emphasis is on speaking skill and use of general knowledge rather than copious research

Lies with the negative

Falls on the Affirmative

Establish Prima facia case; establish terms of propostion; use all evidence

establish philosophy of team and it's stand on proposition; offer alternative definitions; offer counterplan; establish points of clash and weak spots

Must answer attacks made in negative constructive; answer challenges to definition/topicality/extend refutation; respond to most critical or damaging negative constructive

give judge reasons to vote for neg team; cover main arguments that reject affirmative

summarize debate from affirmative perspective; respond to main arguments favoring rejection of affirmative argument; point out things not contested or that the neg has stopped arguing (suggesting favor of affirmative)

The inferential leap made from grounds to claim made through warrant;

known as warrant, is used to infer that because these grounds exist, believing this claim to be true or probable is justified

suggests a temporal connection between phenomena (an event or condition is the cause of an event or condition; based on the idea that things occur in an orderly fashion)

important, required, question: are the grounds sufficient to bring about or cause the conditions specified in the claim?

if without its presence the effect will not occur

if by itself, it will not bring about the effect

connect phenomena with conditions that exist (events seen as signs or attitudes or activities)

cautions: are other grounds likely to lead to the effect? Are there instances in which this effect has not followed these grounds - is the relationship consistent?

cautions: be sure the sign is reliable; do not mistakes signs for causes - a sign tells what is the case, while a cause explains why it is the case; note strength of sign

a form of inductive reasoning, in which one looks at specific examples and makes inferences about the whole

cautions: may be restricted in nature, arguing from some to more; when making universalisms, make sure the sample is adequate

involve reasoning on the basis of two or more similar events or cases; when we have all the particulars of a given case and we reason from it, comparing the known case to the unknown

cautions: how are the cited cases similar? are the similarities key factors:

assume some fundamental sameness exists between the characteristics of dissimilar cases;

cautions: considered weakest form of argument! cases must be sufficiently similar in function in all important ways; the dissimilarities must not be so great as to overshadow the similarities

relies on the credibility and expertise of the source

cautions: qualifications of the source; is the context in which the opinion made that of the expert's? Is the source unbiased? does the statement reflect the majority or minority view? is there a reliable factual basis on which the source's statement rests?

forces a choice between two unacceptable alternatives

Jumping to a conclusion- squeezing more out of an argument than is warranted

extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible

when a claim asserts that what is true of the part is true of the whole

arguing that what is true of the whole is true of the part

bring up an argument that was never made (by opponent) just to tear it down or restate a strong argument (by opponent) in a way that makes it appear weaker

one that does not seem pertinent in terms of the claim it advances or the proof it offers

supports the claims with reasons identical to the claim itself

shifts attention away from the issue at hand

changing the subject or bypassing a critical issue

shifts the attention to the arguer's personality or appearance or ability to reason

arguer abandons her or his original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one

locate and magnify another's weak or indefensible argument

oversimplified, yes or no, choice

Ask the audience to accept the truth of a claim because no proof to the contrary exists

because it is popular it is right - appeals to prejudice and feelings and not the issues

acceptable if used in moderation and in combination with sound reasoning

when used as only basis on which an alteration of belief or behavior is justified

when authority lacks expertise, is characterized as infallible, and is used to cut off consideration of issue

ask audience to accept something because it is customary rather than because of the reasons that justify it

when used to entertain instead of enlighten; when humor is used to take a claim to its most extreme and therefore absurd meaning

when a term is used differently by both parties

words have multiple, legitimate meanings

language that arouses emotional response

Becomes problematic when listeners lose sight of issues or when it is used in place of reasoning on the issues

focuses on one or more units of argument that call the audience's attention to the results of what has happened, is happening, or will happen

importance

why the state of affairs is the way it is, and therefore needs remedying

arguments that respond to the probable objections the opponent will make before she or he has had a chance to make them

determine whether to accept the advocate's primary inference as topical or as unnecessarily restricted; use presumption to dispute

opponent argues that the advocate's is not consciously using distortion or deception but, the argument is indeed fallacious

opponent argues that the relationship inferred by the advocate is based on a limited understanding of the circumstances surrounding the facts and a more complete understanding would lead to a different inference

is there a reason for change in the manner suggested by the policy proposition? does the proposed policy resolve the reason for change? What are the consequences of the proposed policty

establish strategy, examine definitions, refute the reason for change, challenge inherency, refute consequences of change, offer a counter proposal

By what value hierarchy is the object of the proposition best evaluated? By what criteria is the object best evaluated? Does effect, significance, and inherency of the object show that it conforms to the criteria?

Refute the measurement, challenge the criteria, consider the advocate's value hierarchy, is it the most appropriate? has the object been properly defined?

organized pieces of evidence, along with explanation and citation, into a list of the strongest to the weakest

Claim- Congress needs to vote to approve the bailout plan today.

I. Main contention one (worded as a complete, declarative sentence) Our economy is in recession.
A. Sub-contention one (worded as a complete, declarative sentence) The subprime
mortgage rates are killing lenders.
1. Evidence to support sub-claim one paraphrased in complete sentences
complete MLA citation for evidence