Analyzing Arguments

1
Analyzing Arguments
2
What is an argument?

• the claims that people make when they are
  asserting their opinions and/or supporting their
  beliefs. (Hollihan and Baaske)
• . . . putting forth a claim, evidence, and
  reasoning. (Verlinden)

3
Other definitions

• Reason a statement intended to establish a
  claim. (Herrick)
• Conclusion a statement accompanied by
  supporting reasons. (Herrick)
• Claim a statement that does not stand alone
  without further proof, a conclusion the audience
  will not accept without verification.(Rybacki)

4
Decision making

• Intrapersonal-rational arguments with ourselves.
• Interpersonal-rational arguments with others.
• Group-rational arguments used within a team
  setting.

5
Reasons we make arguments

• To justify our position on a topic.
• To seek to persuade someone.
• As a means of discovery, inquiry, and education.

6
The Narrative paradigm

• Developed by Walter Fisher
• Main premise is that people reason through
  narratives
• Fisher believes that people are essentially
  storytellers.
• We make decisions on the basis of good reasons.

7
More

• History, biography, culture, and character
  determine what we consider good reasons.
• Narrative rationality is determined by the
  coherence and fidelity of our stories.
• The world is a set of stories from which we
  choose, and thus constantly re-create our lives.

8
Summary

• People come to understand their world and their
  values through narratives.
• We will seek out stories that fit our interests
  and disregard those that dont make sense to us.
• If the story holds together (cohesive) we accept
  it as reality.

9
Arguer Orientations

• Wayne Brockriede published an article in the
  1970s called Arguers as lovers.
• He proposed that arguer orientations can be
  framed as rapist, seducer, or lovers.

10
The arguer as Rapist

• Depersonalizes the other.
• Relies on verbal aggressiveness. (name calling,
  ad hominems, etc . . )
• Uses force, authority, sanctions.
• Employs threats, ultimatums.
• An example poor litigants vs. large
  corporations.

11
The Arguer as Seducer

• Relies on harm, beguilement, trickery.
• Creates an illusion of choice.
• Utilizes ingratiation strategies.
• Resorts to deception.
• Employs illicit reasoning (false reasoning,
  withholding evidence, etc.)

12
Rapists and Seducers as Arguers

• Displays disregard for the other person.
• Views other as an object or target rather
  than as a person.
• Emphasizes success, de-emphasizes relationships.
• Unwilling to expose oneself to the risk of
  change.
• Adopts only one perspective on a issueones own.

13
Arguers as Lovers

• Regards other as an equal, stresses power parity.
• Values the relationship as much as (if not more
  than) the outcome of decision.
• Emphasizes cooperation and collaboration over
  competition.
• Values shared decision making, choice making.
• Willing to risk values, knowledge, and
  self-esteem by engaging in argument.

14
Conclusions

• The categories arent mutually exclusive, they
  are a matter of degree.
• The categories are situational and contextual.
• A person can change his or her orientation to
  arguing.