Embedded Files
Overview
Overview
Some of the most common argumentation styles are are:
Toulmin. This is based on the work of philosopher Stephen Toulmin and uses evidence and reasoning to support claims. It consists of a claim, evidence, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals.
Rogerian. Based on the work of psychologist Carl Rogers, this style emphasizes finding common ground and building empathy between opposing viewpoints, including finding common ground, acknowledging differences, building empathy, and finding a mutually acceptable solution.
Classical. The Classical argument style is drawn from the Aristotelian method and focuses on clear, logical reasoning and evidence-based claims. It is created using an introduction, statement of facts, confirmation, refutation, and conclusion.
The style you choose will depend on the context and purpose of the argument you're making.
The Toulmin Method
The Toulmin Method
The Toulmin Method is designed to help students identify the components of an argument and evaluate its strength. It can be particularly useful in situations where a structured argument is needed, such as in academic writing, debates, or persuasive speeches. It consists of six main elements:
Claim: The thesis of the argument.
Example: Allowing pharmacists to provide antibiotics without a prescription would increase access for rural areas with limited medical facilities.
Grounds: The evidence which supports the claim.
A study conducted by the American Pharmacists Association found that pharmacists are capable of safely and effectively prescribing antibiotics for certain health conditions.
Warrant: The underlying assumption which connects the grounds to the claim (in bold).
Allowing pharmacists to prescribe antibiotics would increase access to necessary medications, therefore and improving public health outcomes by reducing the spread of infections.
Backing: Additional evidence which supports the warrant.
The American Medical Association supports allowing pharmacists to prescribe certain medications in order to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare disparities.
Rebuttal: Addresses potential counterarguments to the claim.
Some believe that access to antibiotics without a prescription would lead to overuse, creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, pharmacists can be trained to only prescribe necessary antibiotics and to educate patients on safe antibiotic use to mitigate this threat.
Qualifier: The degree of certainty or scope of the claim (in bold).
Allowing pharmacists to prescribe antibiotics without a prescription could be beneficial if it is done in a safe and regulated manner, with appropriate training and oversight.
The Rogerian Method
The Rogerian Method
This method is helps people with opposing views to find common ground and negotiate an acceptable solution. It emphasizes the importance of active listening, respect, and compromise. The Rogerian method can be particularly useful in situations where there is a high degree of conflict or tension, such as in political or social issues. Here's an example applied to a hypothetical argument about pit bulls, which can sometimes be a hot-button issue:
Person A: "Pit bulls are loving and loyal pets and should be allowed within our city limits."
Person B: "Pit bulls are dangerous and should be banned from our city."
The Rogerian Method would likely use the following steps:
Finding common ground: As person A, you would start by identifying areas of agreement with Person B. What do both value? What do both want? This can help establish trust.
We can both agree that we want to keep people and animals safe from harm.
Acknowledging differences: You would also do well to acknowledge Person B's perspective and empathize with it.
I understand that there are concerns about pit bull attacks and that some people believe that banning them is the best solution. It is important to acknowledge that some pit bulls have exhibited aggressive behavior.
Present your viewpoint as it differs from the opposition:
Yes, pit bulls have been involved in some attacks but they're not inherently violent. Many pit bulls are wonderful and loving pets. Banning an entire breed would punish the responsible owners who have trained their dogs well, while leaving irresponsible owners who are the root cause of dog violence, unaddressed.
Address concerns to show the context in which your position is valid:
It's important to remind ourselves that dog violence doesn't begin and end with pit bulls- it can happen with any breed. So instead of banning a specific breed, we should focus on responsible ownership and training. This includes measures such as requiring owners to properly socialize and train their dogs, providing education on responsible dog ownership, and enforcing penalties for owners who fail to control their dogs.
Show the benefits of adopting your position:
By taking these steps, we can help ensure that all dogs, including pit bulls, are well-behaved and safe.
The Classical Method
The Classical Method
This method is often used in academic writing and public speaking. It emphasizes presenting clear, logical arguments that are supported by evidence and addressing opposing views respectfully. Here is an example using classical components:
Introduction: Provides context for the argument and presents the thesis.
College tuition can sometimes making higher education impossible, and at best, presents a burden for many families. Instead, we should make college tuition free for all students.
Statement of facts: This provides evidence which supports the thesis.
First, higher education is a fundamental right that shouldn't depend on finances. Second, college experience increases the likelihood of landing higher-paying jobs. If that college experience was free, we could significantly decrease income inequality and promote upward social mobility.
Confirmation: This is the main body of the argument and provides explanation and analysis of evidence.
Free college tuition affects everyone. If there are more college graduates, they can fill some of the skills gaps in the workforce, which could benefit the economy. Meanwhile, decreasing the amount of student loan debt the average person carries would positively affect both the economy and the individual's finances.
Refutation: Addresses counterarguments.
Some argue that free college just isn't financially possible, and worry that free tuition would affect the qulaity of education the average student receives, while shutting out those who can't meet vigorous academic standards. Those concerns are valid, but when we look at colleges that have implemented free tuition, like Germany or Finland, we see that those concerns haven't born out.
Conclusion: Summarizes the argument and restates the thesis.
To summarize, college tuition should be free. This would promote college access, reduce financial inequality, and benefit the economy. All of these pieces together could benefit society as a whole.
Which style would you choose for an argument on the topic of...
Which style would you choose for an argument on the topic of...
Gun control?
Minimum wage increases?
Decreasing the voting age to 16?
Free healthcare for all?
The affect of social media on mental health?
The use of GMO in agriculture?
Climate change?
Which would you choose and why?
Google Sites
Report abuse