Transcript Argumentation - St. Edward's University

Argumentation
What it Entails
SUBMISSION 2
THREE SECTIONS
1. Introduction to social
problem
2. Background/history/
current policy
3. In-depth presentation
of the sides
Section I
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
(approximately 3-4 pages)
• Introduction
• Social problem
– Significance
– Statistics
– Targets
• Definitions (as needed)
• Brief overview of the controversy
• Conclude with normative question
Significance of the Social Problem
• The social problem that underlies your
controversy (the broad macro problem)
• Statistics for the problem, describing the scope
– Demonstrate that this is a problem
– Targets- who is hurt by the social problem
• Why it is important that the problem is solved
Watch out for bias
Brief Overview of the Controversy
• Identify the actors involved (parties to the
controversy)
• Identify the issues that shape the debate
• Identify the values central to each side
Definitions
• The Current
controversial policy
• Important words in
topic sentence (e.g.
DOMA)
• Relevant law(s),
guidelines, etc.
The Solution
• Conclude the
introduction with your
normative question
• The normative question
that is also the title of
your paper
INTRODUCTION (Sec 1)
• After Reading your introduction, the reader
should:
– Understand why this is an important controversy
– Understand who is affected by this problem
– Understand why this problem needs to be solved
– Understand the major actors and what they want
– Understand the controversial solution to solve the
problem
Your introduction should scare the
reader by convincing him/her that
the fate of the world depends on
solving this problem
Section 2
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
(Approximately 5 pages)
• Goal: historical context to understand current
controversy
• Starting place: it should be far back enough to
describe the modern dilemma
• Ending point: Most recent events
Finish With The Current Policy
• What is it (be specific)
• How does it work
• What are the problems
For Each Key Event
• Why was it
controversial
• Which side passed it
• Who opposed it
Sources
• Vary your Sources
• Do not simply cut and
paste from CQ
Researcher
• Reliance on a single
source is transcribing!
Things to avoid
• Going Back too far in
time
• Wikipedia (of course)
• Missing out on
important events
Avoid Rabbit Holes
• Stick to the relevant
historical events
• Avoid getting off-track
• Just because you find it
interesting doesn’t
mean it is important
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
• At the End of this section, the reader should:
– Know the policy attempts at solving the social
policy
– Know the deficiencies with the current policy
– Know the current policy: As of Spring 2013, what
is the current policy.
Section 3
PRESENTATION OF EACH SIDE
What it Contains (4-5 Pages for Each
Side)
• Stakeholders
• Arguments
• Issues
• Plans
Who are the Stakeholders?
• Identify the General Stakeholders
• Identify the Specific Stakeholders
– Tell me why the group matters
– Tell me what they value
• Conclude by identifying their major arguments
on the solution
Issues and Arguments.
• Introduce the issues in a
paragraph listing the
issues
• You must have 3 for
each side
For Each Issue
• Identify the Issue
• Provide the argument why they want it
• Provide the evidence to support their
argument
• Plans for solving the problem
At the End of this Section
• The Reader will know
– The Parties to the Controversy
– The issues surrounding the controversial solution
– The Arguments for and against the controversial
solution
– The evidence supporting each argument
– How each side is trying to enact the solution
MECHANICS
• Approximately 14-16 pages long (Minimum of
12)
• Works Cited
• Correct MLA form throughout
• Style
– In accordance with Capstone guidelines
– Polished, proofed
• DUE: In Class 3/8/2013
The Death of Socrates
• He is dead, do not use
his method
• Do not ask a question,
and then answer it.
• Just write the answer
For Submission 2
• Present arguments that make sense
• Present arguments from actors that are
politically relevant
• Present arguments that are directly related to
the issues.
For Submission 2
• Keep writing 1 page a day or finding 1 good
source a day
• Spend at least 1 hour a day in a place where
you are most comfortable for studying
• Don’t
This submission is 25% of your final
grade… take it seriously
THE PARTS OF ARGUMENT
Identifying Arguments
• What Cannot be argued
– Discrete Facts without interpretation- Obama
won the 2008 election
– Impossibilities (who would win the bear or the
lion)
– Preferences (Mr. Pibb is better than Dr. Pepper)
– Beliefs beyond Human experience (invoking
God)
Analyzing Arguments and Evidence
• Valid arguments have:
– An Argument (what the proponent/opponent
wants)
– A well justified reason and Evidence (why they
want it)
• Accurate and logical
– A Policy conclusion
• The policy based on this conclusion
An example of an Argument
• Argument: We need to insure the 30+ Million
Americans do not have health care
• Reason: Persons without health care drive up
the cost of insurance for all Americans
• Evidence- Without insurance, it will cost us 1
trillion dollars
• Conclusion: We should implement a singlepayer plan proposed by Congress
How to Analyze the Argument
• Is the argument non-normative?
• Does the argument present any supporting
data?
• What is the source of the data? Is it
trustworthy?
What Qualifies as evidence
• Research studies and Surveys
– Method
• Phone, in person, mail
– Sample size
• Larger is better if collected properly
– Sponsor
• Many research studies are very dated
What qualifies as Evidence
• Case Studies
– An application of the policy solution to a smaller
group
• State level
• Municipal.
– Be Careful
• May not be generalizable
• Apples to oranges
• Remember that the United States is unique
What Qualifies as Evidence
• Expert Testimony
–
http://www.kvue.com/news/politics/Professor-Hutchison-campaign-on-death-watch-after-poll-83486467.html
– Can be misleading
– Not every expert is really an expert
• Precedents
– Previous attempts at policy
– Examine the similarities and dissimilarities
– E.g. 1994 vs. 2010 Health Care Bill
The Lowest Form
• “Remember when is the
lowest form of
conversation”
• Personal experience is the
weakest form of evidence
• Stories
• Hypothetical Examples
STAKEHOLDERS
Interest Groups as Stakeholders
What is Important
• Money
– www.opensecrets.org
• Size/Cohesiveness
• Access
What is not
• Pure Grassroots
• Unconventional
tactics
• Everything that is
not on the left hand
side.
When Looking at Politicians
Who Matters
Who Does Not
• Must be elected, or well • Old elected officials
known candidates
(George W. Bush)
• The more senior the
better
• Candidates and parties
who do not have a
chance
• The more members of
their party in the
legislature, the better
• Lower-level bureaucrats
Decision makers are more
important than non-decision
makers
FALLACIES
Fallacies
• A way of making a
persuasive
argument, via a
mistake in reasoning
• Faulty Logic
Ecological Fallacy
• Using Aggregate Data to infer individual
opinions. (taking means or grouped data and
using it to explain the actions of individuals)
• Also called the fallacy of division- if the whole
possesses a quality, but the parts might not
An Example
• On Mr. Burns Wanting to bowl: "Call this an
unfair generalization if you must, but old
people are no good at everything." Moe the
Bartender from the Simpsons
Exception Fallacy
• Taking individual behavior and applying to a
group.
• Stereotyping
• Applying the preferences of one actor to a
class of political actors
• Using one extreme “story” to justify macrolevel policy
How Others view Texas
How We View Others
Hasty Generalization
• Using a small or non-representative sample to
prove a point. (a type of exception fallacy)
• Not looking at all the independent variables,
to explain a dependent variable
Survey Says….
Baptist and Syphilis
Faulty Generalization
• An example of the exception fallacy
• Evaluating everyone with criteria that apply
only to some
• Be wary of saying that “Democrats”,
“Republicans”, Liberals, Conservatives, believe
something. Attach names with parties.
This was Real
AD HOMINEN ("to the man“)
• Discredit a person's qualities or circumstances
• It consists of citing irrelevant facts about a
person's actions or character in an effort to
undermine his position
An Example
• You cannot trust
Dick Cheney,
everyone knows
he worked for an
Oil Company.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
• Expert Authorities can be useful for
argumentation (e.g. Federal Data).
• Fallacious if the authority is not really an
expert or when there are trust issues
– Because Sean Penn likes Hugo Chavez, we must
respect his foreign policy decisions.
An Appeal To Authority
EMOTIONAL APPEAL
• Appeals to fear and pity with little relevance to
the issue
• Often Involve threats, pity, appeals to fear, evoke
sympathy.
• Cutesy stories
• Here is a example
SLIPPERY SLOPE
• One undesirable effect will automatically lead
to another and another
Argument from Ignorance
• In Logic, all hypotheses are false until proven
true.
• In this case, you assume something is true
until proven false.
– Kennedy assassination was an inside job
– 9/11 was an inside job- prove me wrong.
For Submission 2
• Present arguments that make sense
• Present arguments from actors that are
politically relevant
• Present arguments that are directly related to
the issues.
For Submission 2
• Keep writing 1 page a day or finding 1 good
source a day
• Spend at least 1 hour a day in a place where
you are most comfortable for studying
• Don’t