Arguments: creating & refuting(argumentation skills course)

Mārtiņš Liberts

SSE Riga & LMT Debate Club coach

Agenda

• SEXI model

• Toulmin model

• Creating arguments

• Refuting arguments

NOTE: All Valid arguments are Sound;

Not all Sound arguments are Valid

SEXI modelby unknown debater

SEXI argument: basics Summarizes the argument in a clear and concise form Introduces the desired activity or value Might introduce the main reason for the activity or value

S

I

Ex

Statement

Explanation

Illustration

The most important part of any argument Provides the analysis behind the Statement

Provides necessary validity for the argument Few things can be used to Illustrate:

Basic logics Analogy Example Statistics

TIP: the best argument is the clearest one

SEXI argument: examples

We should tax cars to decrease pollutionS

I

Ex

Statement

Explanation

Illustration (Basic Logics)

Taxing provides incentive for drivers to use cars less and to switch to other alternatives – other means of transportation

NOTE: ‘basic logics’ simply expands Explanation

TIP: avoid using ‘basic logics’ alone

Shows desired action &

main reason

Explains the reasoning

behind Statement

Validates Explanation Whenever you tax something it becomes more expensive,

thus people are less able to afford it and are either limiting its usage or shifting to alternative products or services

SEXI argument: examples

We should tax cars to decrease pollutionS

I

Ex

Statement

Explanation

Illustration (Analogy)

Taxing provides incentive for drivers to use cars less and to switch to other alternatives – other means of transportation

TIP: if two things share some features, they might still not be completely similar

Shows desired action &

main reason

Explains the reasoning

behind Statement

Validates Explanation After putting taxes on alcohol, its usage has decreased

and more people are spending their time in other ways

SEXI argument: examples

We should tax cars to decrease pollutionS

I

Ex

Statement

Explanation

Illustration (Example)

Taxing provides incentive for drivers to use cars less and to switch to other alternatives – other means of transportation

TIP: make sure that example used is not an exception

Shows desired action &

main reason

Explains the reasoning

behind Statement

Validates Explanation When introducing a tax in Latvia for cars that have

engines larger than 5 l, less of such cars have been purchased

SEXI argument: examples

We should tax cars to decrease pollutionS

I

Ex

Statement

Explanation

Illustration (Statistics)

Taxing provides incentive for drivers to use cars less and to switch to other alternatives – other means of transportation

TIP: statistics should be clear, reasonable, not always absolute numbers should be used

Shows desired action &

main reason

Explains the reasoning

behind Statement

Validates Explanation Questionnaire answered by 5 000 people last week shows

that approximately 57% would use public transportation instead of a car if annual costs of cars increased by Ls 1 000

Toulmin modelby Stephen Toulmin

Toulmin argument: basics Main point, thesis, controlling idea Claim may be directly stated or it may be implied “What is author trying to prove?”

Claim

Support

Warrant (-s)

Reasons to support Claim (evidence, facts, statistics, proof, expert opinion, examples, explanations, data, arguments, logical reasoning or

grounds) “What does author say to persuade listener of Claim?”

Assumptions or presuppositions underlying the argument Warrants are generally accepted beliefs, values, common

ways our culture or society views things Warrants provide underlying reasons linking Claim & Support Warrants are often unstated and implied “What is causing author to say the things he does?”

Toulmin argument: example We should tax cars to decrease pollution

Claim

Support (Statistics)

Warrant (-s)

Taxing provides incentive for drivers to use cars less and to switch to other alternatives – other means of transportation that pollute less

Questionnaire answered by 5 000 people last week shows that approximately 57% would use public transportation instead of a car if annual costs of cars increased by Ls 1 000

People are generally willing to pay as little as possible and any price increase makes at least some people to decrease the consumption

Decreasing pollution is a generally good idea

Shows main idea, desired

action & main reason

Explains & proves

reasoning for Claim

Underlying beliefs

Toulmin argument: advanced One should not use superlatives (all, every, absolutely or never,

none, no one) One may need to qualify Claim with expressions (many, many

times, some or rarely, few, possibly)

Qualifier

Rebuttal

Backing

One needs to answer questions and objections raised in the minds of the audience (otherwise the argument will be weakened and subject to attack and counter-argument)

Rebuttal may be directed to opposing claims or at alternative interpretations of evidence or new evidence

Sometimes Warrant needs evidence to support it, to make it more believable and to further support the argument

Toulmin argument: example We should tax cars to decrease pollution We should tax cars older than 15 yrs to decrease

pollution

Qualifier

Rebuttal

Backing

Taxing provides incentive for drivers to use cars less and to switch to other alternatives – other means of transportation that pollute less

The tax introduced will be high enough to make people thing twice before buying a car

Decreasing pollution is a generally good idea Scientific research has stated that in few hundred years it

won’t be possible to live on Earth unless we intervene

Allows to exclude

some tricky groups

Allows to rebut

opposition arguments

Backs not so common Warrant

Toulmin argument: full example We should tax cars to decrease pollution

Claim

Support (Statistics)

Warrant (-s)

Taxing provides incentive for drivers to use cars less and to switch to other alternatives – other means of transportation that pollute less

Questionnaire answered by 5 000 people last week shows that approximately 57% would use public transportation instead of a car if annual costs of cars increased by Ls 1 000

People are generally willing to pay as little as possible and any price increase makes at least some people to decrease the consumption

That should apply only to cars older than 15 yrs Qualifier

Backing Scientific research has stated that in few hundred years it won’t be possible to live on Earth unless we intervene

Rebuttal The tax introduced will be high enough to make people thing twice before buying a car

Decreasing pollution is a generally good ideaWarrant

Creating arguments

SEXI vs. Toulmin

Claim with Qualifier (plus Warrant) makes Statement

Statement

Explanation

Illustration

NOTE: for the best & complete argument most of Toulmin parts should be included

Claim

Support

BackingWarrant

Qualifier

Rebuttals Support with Warrant (its Backing) as well as

Rebuttals make perfect Explanation & Illustration

Warrant

Statement / Claim: possible types

• Cause(how, why it happened, what was the cause, what will it produce, effects)

– Technologies in newer cars decrease potential pollution

• Definition(classification, definition, interpretation, meaning)

– Car pollution is a problem of the whole society

• Fact(true, real, fact, happened, exists)

– Cars are causing great deal of pollution

• Policy(what should we do, why should we do, policy, actions to solve problem)

– We should tax cars to decrease pollution

• Value(good or bad, beneficial or harmful, who says so, what value system should be used)

– Car pollution is the worst thing human can do

NOTE: remember that almost any given topic can be formed into any type of Claim

Argument by Aristotle

• Atechnic based on facts (statistics, empirical studies, surveys

Discovered through research

• Entechnic Pisteis based on persuasive appealInvented by careful thinking about the topic, speaker / writer

and listeners / readers– Logos: giving good reasons– Ethos: coming across as a credible, trustworthy

person– Pathos: connecting with the beliefs, values, and

cultural assumptions of one's audienceNOTE: in academic world most arguments should be based on Facts or should have

good reasons (Logos)

Usage of Ethos

• Ethos (person)Especially needed if argument is very controversial

– Show intelligence, moral character or good will– Use voice and distance with audience– Grammatical person (I / we, you, s/he)– Verb tense (present / past, active / passive)– Long, sophisticated words– Use qualifiers (acknowledge exceptions)

NOTE: Ethos creates environment where arguments are perceived better

Usage of Pathos

• Pathos (values)Used to provide extra support to argument

– Use gestures, facial expressions, movements– Use vivid explanations– Make sure to address the values of audience– Indirectly steer them into favorable path

NOTE: Pathos creates environment where arguments are perceived better

Five Canons of Classical Rhetoric

• Invention: coming up with ideas– Facts, Data, Statistics, Reports, Testimony, Interviews, Polls, Surveys– Make good reasons & logical arguments– How to project yourself as a credible person– How to connect with audience’s values, beliefs, emotional state

• Arrangement: ordering your discourse– Exordium: an introduction to make the audience attentive and receptive– Narratio: making your claim– Partitio: forecasting your argument– Confirmatio: arguing your case– Refutatio: meeting counter-arguments– Peroratio: concluding appropriately

Five Canons of Classical Rhetoric

• Style: saying things well– “Grammatical correctness”– Appropriate word choice– Sentence structure– Metaphor, hyperbole, rhetorical questions, irony

• Memory: more than mere memorization– Try to make your speech / writing memorable– Connecting with shared cultural memories

• Delivery: the final step– Deliver your speech / paper as planned– Remember that you should alter delivery based on the media, aim

• Web page, Essay, Debate speech

5 steps to deliver speech / paper

Come up with ideas, facts, reasons, arguments How to create a credible person, connect with audience C

reating speech / paper

Invention

Arrangement

Style

Introduction, claim, show argument, argue, refute counter arguments, conclude

Wrapping and styling ideas into nice words

NOTE: practice will allow you to do necessary steps without much consideration

Memory How will you make speech / paper memorable

Delivery Go on and deliver your speech / paper

Refuting arguments

Refute definitions

• Look at the words used in the argument– Is there a single, clear meaning– Is that meaning clear to everyone– Seek ambiguity and uncertainty

• Words with various definitions• Challenge expertise and assumptions of authority

– Show that there are contradictory definitions

Refute logics

• Consider the rationale being used– Are logical connections clear and sound– Are there unclear, bizarre assumptions– Test causes for clear and direct connections– Are generalizations, inductive and deductive

arguments correct– Are there any distractions– Is the subject changed– Show that the rationale has faults in it

• See if arguments don’t contradict each other

Refute grounds

• Consider data and evidence used– Show that there is not enough data– Show that some critical evidence is missing– Indicate how data that might refute the

argument is being ignored– Show how data is being misinterpreted or

misrepresented

Refute support

• Look at the supporting statements to the argument– Refute Warrant linking grounds to Claim– Refute Backing that supports Warrant– Challenge Qualifiers and floppy language

• Find the weakest link in the chain and focus on it until it breaks– Many arguments have a valid claim but weak support

Use a counter argument

• Create argument to refute existing one– Show that your argument covers more areas– Show that it covers areas more thoroughly– Make it more interesting and appealing– Make the logic and structure complete and

sound– Use solid data that cannot be challenged

Indicate a logical fallacy• Slippery slope

– Weak causal link between many actions that lead into huge conclusion• Attack the person

– When arguments attack speakers not ideas• Appeal to tradition

– Traditions are nice but they don’t make argument all alone• Appeal to authority

– Authorities are also nice, just nice • Appeal to common belief

– There is no common belief, argument “you all know” just don’t work• False dilemma

– Some options given; however, there are more

Indicate a logical fallacy• Hasty Generalization

– One exclusion doesn’t make a law• Red Herring (Squirreling)

– Completely change the topic• Post hoc (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc)

– If X follows Y, X is caused by Y• Strawman

– Refutes the weakest argument and states that all arguments are refused• False analogy

– Even if two things seem similar, they might be not• Assertion

– Asserting that something is true, right etc. without proving it

• More can be found there:www.changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies.htm

Refuting argument

TIP: use many ways of refutation; however, don’t pick on too small details

Definitions used

Argument

Logics used

Grounds used

Support used

Counter argument

Logical fallacies

Thank you for your attention!

Let’s have some quick questions..