top of page
Become a Master Like Socrates
The Art of Argumentation

Argumentation

An argument can be understood as a set of propositions, with the purpose of persuading through reasoning. It is always a complex structure of an assertion that needs to be proven through reasoning and support. While reasoning usually means giving the logic to an argument, support stands for bringing the argumentation “down to earth”, showing the relevancy or importance of the reasoning in the broader society. Whenever discussing about arguments, we have to keep in mind the three-stage model of argumentation. 

Jernej Podgornik

Za in proti

The structure of an argument 

Introducing the A–R–E model

 

A) ASSERTION

 

It’s the title of an argument that has to be very clear, understandable, short and has to sum up the whole meaning of an argument. It is something that has to be very memorable, it is the line that is usually written by the judges in the debate or remembered by the audience, therefore very important. 

 

B) REASONING

 

Reasoning is a process of thinking in a logical way. It is a very important part of an argument in which we try to prove the claim (assertion) stated at the beginning of an argument in a logical and understandable way. There are more ways and types of reasoning, we will analyze 3 types of reasoning: deduction, induction and causal reasoning.

 

B.1. Induction

 

Example: Mary Smith is tall; Jack Smith is tall; Frank Smith is tall. Mary, Jack S. and Frank Smith are a family. The Smith family must be a tall family.

 

Inductive argument is an argument on specific premises from which we make a general conclusion. It is the reasoning using the generalization method based on the very 

PROJECT VIDEO: Slovenian debate trainer Jernej Podgornik speaks about What You Need To Know About Argumentation at WSDA 2013

specific facts, which can be generalized under very specific conditions. We can call those conditions testing the induction (i.e. the things we need to be careful of when using an induction as a type of reasoning):

 

  • Are the examples being used culturally consistent, culturally sensitive?

  • Are there any important negative examples?

  • Are the examples representing proper time, society and is their geographical coverage sufficient enough to make a generalization out of them?

  • Are the examples being used for generalization important and “big” enough to make the generalization reliable and representative?

 

B.2. Deduction

 

B.2.1 Categorical deduction

 

Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

 

This is where you name a category or a group, you name the truth of that group, then you find/locate an item or a person, that has the same specifics and then you conclude: what is true for the whole group or category, must be the true for a person or item. 

Name the category, name the quality of a category, locate a specific item in the category and conclude that the item/individual has the same quality as the whole category.

 

Problems: 

  • It may not be true for every item in the category.

  • Wrong categorization: the person may not be in the category.

  • The conclusion might be improperly stated. It can be dangerous using this kind of deduction, because it has to be real and our social experiences are limited, so be careful when you are using it.

 

B.2.2. Disjunctive deduction

 

Example: Shall I go to the movies or shall I go out and have dinner. 

 

We are using disjunctive deduction when we are having two choices, and we are deciding for the better one or for the lesser evil. You have to do two parts: explain why one decision would be bad and give the reason why the other choice is better.

 

Problems:

  • Wrongly presented dichotomy: usually, we do not have only two choices, besides going to dinner or movie we can read a book, go to the discotheque or something else.

  • A lot of times we can do both alternatives (exceptions).

  • The alternative from the proposition, which is presented as bad, can sometimes be better.

 

B.2.3. Hypothetical/causal deduction

 

Example: Smoking causes cancer. You are a smoker, this means you’ll get cancer.

 

It’s a correlation between two situations. Situation A is a reason for situation B (consequence).

 

Problems:

  • Does the cause have the means or the power to cause such an effect?

  • Is it a significant or insignificant cause? 

  • Are there any other important causes for the effect? 

  • Original and contributing causes: for example pregnancy – two cells join together and this is an original cause, contributing causes can be bad decision, not protected, loads of alcohol etc.

  • Counteractive causes: if your occupation exposes you to danger, such as polluted area, which can cause a lounge disease, what can we do? Quit our job, wear a mask or respirator … – so you have to always think about counteractive causes.

  • Coincidence or causality: death penalty causes reduction of crime?

C) Support of an argument: EVIDENCE

 

By supporting an argument, we are referring to the fact that our argument has some concrete applications in everyday life. In other words, with evidence/support we are bringing the argument “down to earth” by showing some practical benefits and consequences of our reasoning/logic in the broader society. We can support our reasoning by using following evidence:

 

  • General facts - oil and water don’t mix: be careful, don’t start your argument with “We all know…”, because there are really very few things that are so general, that we can agree on and this is why you have to be really careful when using general facts. 

  • Statistics – it is very useful especially when showing something is up to date, is from the same cultural background as our argument originates from, is the research representative for our case, we can make a generalization out of it for our case.

  • Scientific proofs or research: is always welcome, usually effective, but be careful: are there any important negative examples, such as researches that would disapprove our research?

  • Analogical evidence: analogies are mainly useful when dealing with a topic that is under-researched.  When you don’t have statistics to refer to or other authorities on the matter to quote, you have to get your evidence from somewhere. When using an analogy, you have to be careful that analogy is representative (that the item or matter of comparison you are using is similarly structured as the matter or the item you are trying to prove).

Romanian debate trainer David Moskovici gives his view on Argumentation at WSDA 2012

Master of argumentation Miha Andric gives some extra pointers to debaters at WSDA 2013

Negation of an Argument

 

When rebutting an argument we have to specify, which part of the previous speech are we attacking. Is it the model the side proposition used, are we questioning the argument as a whole, are we attacking the type of reasoning (see testing of induction, deduction and causal reasoning), or are we questioning the evidence or support being used for the argument? For the sake of the structure in the speech, we recommend using the four step model of rebuttal: 

 

STEP 1: "They say ..."

  • State the argument you are about to refute, so the judges can follow easily. Take notes during your opponent's speeches, so you will be clear about what they argued.

  • "The other team said that smoking is harmful for nonsmokers."

STEP 2: "But I disagree..." Or "That may be true, but..."

  • "That may be true, but I think that if nonsmokers want to avoid cigarette smoke, they can walk away from it."

STEP 3: "Because ..."

  • "Because nonsmokers should look out for their own health."

STEP 4: "Therefore..."

  • "Therefore, it is not the responsibility of smokers to protect nonsmokers."

 

 

REFUTATION OF ARGUMENTS ON SEVERAL LEVELS

 

Assumption/Underlying premise

The argument is based on a false/faulty/contentious premise. It assumes something to be true, which can be contested.

 

Relevance/Conclusion

The argument doesn’t conclude what it intends to or can also conclude additional undesirable things. In other words, sometimes an argument is well made, but irrelevant. Sometimes an argument isn’t strong enough and concludes less than what a team needs to prove. Finally, sometimes the logic of an argument can lead you to other conclusions, some of which are undesirable. 

 

Examples

You can deal with the examples given either by presenting counter examples or providing alternative accounts for the example presented. Also be careful for cases where the example might not prove the argument.

 

Counter-Considerations

This type of rebuttal is what many speakers default to. It essentially concedes the argument presented, but points out that there are other things that need to be considered. This may be some value or harms/benefits of alternatives.

 

Logic

The premises don’t follow logically. Either the links between different steps in an argument are entirely lacking or the links are made illogically therefore you can expose some logical fallacies in their case:

 

  • Hasty generalization (problems of induction): River Loara is polluted. River Rhein is polluted. Loara and Rhein are European rivers, therefore European rivers are polluted. There are a lot of European rivers that are not polluted.

  • Transfer fallacies: A) Fallacy of composition: true of part is true of whole. John is a great debater. He is a part of Slovenian national debate team, therefore they will be the winners. (If John is a great debater, this doesn’t mean that the whole team is good.); B) Fallacy of division: true of whole is true of part.

  • Fallacy of refutation (straw person argument): Proposition is proposing a model, opposition is saying that they are saying something else and you attack that. This is where you re-characterize their version and attack the weaker version.

PROJECT VIDEO: World renown US debate coach Alfred C. Snider speaks about How to Create Effective Arguments at WSDA 2013

  • Avoiding the issue: they don’t want to talk about it

  • Attacking the person – That is what I expected of you, because you are such a person – ad hominem

  • Shifts in ground, shifting your position: Oh no, we didn’t say that. Avoiding the issue.

  • Seizing a trivial point/red herring: Every policy before the fall of communism was, we have this because we have to fight communism.

  • False dichotomy:  Bring lunch or walk to school. I can do both.

  • Appeal to ignorance: You cannot prove the existence of god, therefore we have proof that god doesn’t exist. Failure to disprove is not proof.

  • Appeal to the crowd: Everybody is doing it, why don’t we. Everybody might be wrong.

  • Appeal to emotions: We have to intervene in Afghanistan, just think of innocent children suffering after the 9/11 tragedy. We can agree there is a problem, but the solution is not solving a problem. No substitute for reasoning.

  • Appeal to tradition: We have always had slavery – why leave it now? It is called progress. No substitute for reasoning.

  • Appeal to humor:  Joking is no substitute for reasoning.

  • Ambiguity & equivocation: different possible use of words, by changing the meaning of the words used, you change the meaning of the entire point made.

  • Wishful thinking: If we try hard and hope, maybe we can do it. Real life experiences are different. And hoping certainly can’t be a substitute for reasoning.

References

 

  • On-line lectures on argumentation from Professor Alfred Snider from University of Vermont.

  • Ali Almossawi: An illustrated book of bad arguments, Jasper Collins Publisher, NY, 2013. 

  • Robert B. Huber, Alfred Snider: Influencing through argument, International debate Education Association, 2005.

bottom of page