A&D and Types of Argumentation

• Language is innate within us unless there's a particular sickness that hinders a person to communicate
• Exceptional children may have difficulties in communication
• Martyr Complex:

  • A person with a martyr complex may sacrifice their own needs to serve others, even at the cost of their well-being
• Axiom:

  • A statement that everyone believes is true
• Factual and truthful argumentation:

  • Facts make a strong form of evidence
  • A culture of openness and honesty allows parties to constructively resolve conflicts
• Argumentation is the art of influencing others through reasoned discourse to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act
• Debate includes influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader through spoken or written speech by supplying reasons and stirring feelings
• Debate and negotiation are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions
• Eristic dialog:

  • Presenting arguments in a way that focuses on winning debates rather than seeking the truth itself
• Post hoc:

  • The assumption that because one event preceded another event, they must be causally related
  • Rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally
• Debate is a formal method of interactive and representational argument
• Important elements of persuasion:

  • Logical consistency
  • Factual accuracy
  • Some degree of emotional appeal to the audience
• The major goal of the study of debate is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease
• Romulo vs. Recto:

  • Carlos P. Romulo and Claro M. Recto expressed opposing views on the foreign policy of the Republic of the Philippines
  • They never met in a formal debate but expressed their divergent opinions in public speeches
• Two Methods of Approach in Argumentation:

  • Conviction:
  • Appeal to reason to create belief or intellectual agreement
  • Persuasion:
  • Appeal to emotions, feelings, and will to influence actions
• Types of Argumentations:

  1. Causal Argument:

  • Focuses on how something occurred and how a problem arose as a result
  • Helps determine reasons for events and prevent their recurrence

  1. Rebuttal Argument:

  • Refutes an idea or belief and proposes solutions for flaws
  • Includes a counterargument, statement of position, and supporting evidence

  1. Proposal Argument:

  • Proposes a solution to a specific issue
  • Includes problem establishment, proposal details, and reasons for the proposal

  1. Evaluation Argument:

  • Evaluates whether a particular element is "good" or "bad"
• • Requires agreement on criteria for judgment
• Narrative Argument:

  • An argument where an individual tells a story to illustrate a point related to the argument
  • Allows individuals to use a narrative to express their stance on a particular issue
• Toulmin Argument:

  • Developed by Stephen E. Toulmin
  • Composed of claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing
  • Claim is what the arguer wishes to prove
  • Grounds are the facts and evidence that support the claim
  • Warrant links the grounds to the claim
  • Backing provides additional warrant support
  • Qualifier shows that the claim does not always apply to all situations
  • Rebuttal acknowledges other valid viewpoints for the claim
• Rogerian Argument:

  • Used to determine the best solution to an issue based on the interests and needs of all parties involved
  • Helps opposing viewpoints reach common ground by looking at the situation from a different perspective
  • Both parties acknowledge the opposition and build trust by identifying each other’s merit
• Classical Western Argument:

  • Used to persuade a group of people of the validity of an argument or reveal truths that define or affect the argument
  • Includes five components: introduction, narration, confirmation, refutation, and conclusion
  • Often used for being more aggressive or direct, or to establish power with another individual or group
  • Incorporates appeals to the audience’s motivations, values, and feelings in the conclusion
• Ethical/Moral Argumentation:

  • Appeals to principles of right and wrong
  • Involves discussions of morality, values, and ethical principles to support a claim or conclusion
  • Ethics evaluates human actions and the values that underlie them
  • Determines which values should be pursued and which shouldn't
• Logical Argumentation:

  • Relies on the principles of logic to present a coherent and valid case
  • Includes valid deductive or inductive reasoning and avoids logical fallacies
  • Deductive reasoning progresses from general ideas to specific conclusions
  • Inductive reasoning draws conclusions from specific observations to generalizations
• Rhetorical Argumentation:

  • Focuses on the effective use of language and communication techniques to persuade an audience
  • Involves persuasive techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos
  • Pathos appeals to emotion, logos appeals to logic, and ethos conveys the writer’s credibility and authority
• Scientific Argumentation:

  • Based on empirical evidence, data, and the scientific method
  • Presents and interprets scientific findings to support a claim or hypothesis
• Deductive Argumentation:

  • Starts with a general premise and applies it to a specific case to reach a specific conclusion
  • If the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true
• Inductive Argumentation:

  • Presents specific observations or evidence and makes generalizations or draws conclusions based on that evidence
  • The conclusion is not guaranteed to be true, unlike deductive reasoning