Transcript Intro to Argument - Perry County Middle School

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 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 stance
on an issue, moving the audience toward the
arguer’s claim. Arguments work on
us psychologically as well as cognitively,
triggering emotions as well as thoughts
and ideas. How would you describe the
differences in the way that the poster and
toy 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
assertions- (Chocolate ice cream is the
best! NO! Vanilla!)
2.An attempt to resolve the conflict
through an appeal to reason (Well,
vanilla is superior because it contains
fewer artificial ingredients, making it
the “purer” and healthier choice in iced
creams, sir. In addition, Alton Brown
believes vanilla ice cream is better, and
he knows a great 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.