Argumentation

Argumentation is generally defined as the art of influencing others, through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act. It is the process of influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader, through spoken or written speech, by supplying him with reasons and stirring his feelings. (F. M. Africa, The Art of Argumentation and Debate, p. 1) It embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally. (Wikipedia, Argumentation Theory)

Four Processes of Argumentation

1. Invention

This refers to the determination of those ideas in the truth of which one would like others to believe, or that course of action which one would like others to adopt. This process is chiefly concerned with the formulation of the proposition to be discussed. It covers the consideration of the burden of proof and of the issues.

2. Selection

This refers to the choosing from all sources of information of facts, data, statistics, inferences, etc. that will help the arguer to establish the ideas in the truth of which he would like others to believe, or that course of action which he would like others to adopt. This involves the study of how to conduct investigation and research, the nature of evidence, the forms of arguments and the fallacies.

3. Arrangement

This pertains to the organization of the materials that have been selected in such a way as to secure maximum effect upon the belief and behavior of the reader or hearer. This process involves the application of the three great rhetorical principles-unity, coherence and emphasis and the study of the mechanism of the brief and the outline.

4. Presentation

The pertains to the putting of the materials that have been selected and organized into such effective language as to convey the ideas to the reader or hearer with maximum force. This process involves the study of persuasion as the method of approach and the technique of the introduction, of the discussion, of the conclusion and of delivery. (F. M. Africa, The Art of Argumentation and Debate, p. 6)

Components of Argument

1. Claim

Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.”

2. Data

The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.”

3. Warrant

The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

4. Backing

Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

5. Rebuttal

Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”

6. Qualifier

Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.

Kinds of Argumentation

Conversational Argumentation

The study of naturally-occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversational analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology. It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech.Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement.

Mathematical Argumentation

The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithemetic, 1884, and Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in the form of sentences in Symbolic Logic, then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof procedures. This has been carried out for Arithmetic using Peano axioms. Be that as it may, an argument in Mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid just in case it can be shown to be of a form such that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

Scientific Argumentation

Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross "The Rhetoric of Science." Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder," meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.

Legal Argumentation

Legal arguments (or oral arguments) are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument (or summation) is the concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.

Political argumentation

Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment about and understand political events.. The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. A robust political science research tradition seems to prove that the American public is largely irrational and ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of national or world affairs. Political scientist S. Popkin coined the expression "low information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.Some theorists have inferred from this that only comprehensively trained elites can debate public issues. They point as additional proof to the practice of academic debate in the United States, an activity almost exclusively involving children of the upper middle classes, future lawyers and graduate students, and not ordinary citizens.

Rules on an Oxford-Oregon Debate

Format of Debate - Oxford-Oregon Type

Three Speakers from each side:
First Affirmative - Constructive Speech
First Negative - Interpellation of the first affirmative Speaker
First Negative - Constructive Speech
First Affirmative - Interpellation of the first negative speaker
Second Affirmative - Constructive Speech
Second Negative - Interpellation of the second affirmative
Second Negative - Constructive
Second Affirmative - Interpellation of the second negative
Third Affirmative - Constructive Speech
Third Negative - Interpellation of the third affirmative
Third Negative - Constructive Speech
Third Affirmative - Interpellation of the third negative
Rebuttal of the Team Captain of the Negative Side
Rebuttal of the Team Captain of the Affirmative SideDuration
Constructive Speech: Minimum of five (5) and maximum of seven (7) minutes
Interpellation: Five (5) minutes
Rebuttal Speech: Three (3) minutes

Issues for Debate:
A. Whether or not it is Necessary? (Necessity)
B. Whether or not it is Beneficial? (Beneficiality)
C. Whether or not it is practical? (Practicability)

Criteria for Judging:
A. Evidence - 25%
B. Delivery - 30%
C. Interpellation - 30%
D. Rebuttal - 15%

The judges, based on their discretion, shall have the authority to determine who will be the Best Speaker and Best Debater. The winning team shall be determined by the majority decision of the Board of Judges.

Guides for Constructive Speech

Speech types of Constructive Speech may be:
1. Reading Method
2. Memory Method
3. Extemporaneous
4. Mix method of memory and conversational or dramatic

Poise, gestures, audience contact and voice projection are highly recommended.

Rules on Interpellation:
1. Questions should primarily focused on arguments developed in the speech of your opponent. However, matters relevant and material to the proposition are admissible.
2. Questioner and opponent should treat each other with courtesy.
3. Both speakers stand and face the audience during the question or Interpellation period.
4. Once the questioning has begun, neither the questioner nor his opponent may consult a colleague. Consultation should be done before but as quietly as possible.
5. Questioners should ask brief and easily understandable question. Answers should equally be brief. Categorical questions answerable by yes or no is allowed, however, opponent if he choose, may qualify his answer why yes or why no.
6. Questioner may not cut off a reasonable and qualifying answer, but he may cut off a vervous response with a statement such as a “thank you” “that is enough information” or “your point is quite clear” or “I’m satisfied.”
7. A questioner should not comment on the response of his opponent.
8. Your opponent may refuse to answer ambiguous, irrelevant or loaded questions by asking the questioner to rephrase or reform his question.

Rules on Rebuttal Speech
A. Rebuttal speaker should point out clearly the fallacies committed by his opponent stating clearly what particularly statement or argument constitute said fallacy.
B. If not familiar with the fallacies of logic, the debater may counter arguments directly by stating what arguments or statement is incorrect or false.

Role of the Moderator

The moderator of the debate has the following duties:
1. To reveal the issue involve the debate;
2. To rule on points of clarification about the issues or questions and answers made during the Interpellation; and
3. To see to it that the debate is orderly and follows the rules of parliamentary procedures.

Role of the Timer
1. To time the speakers and debaters accurately;
2. To give the speakers a one-minute warning with the ringing of the bell once before his/her time is up.
3. To prevent the debaters from exceeding the time allotted to them by ringing the bell twice.

Tips on Interpellation and Rebuttal

CROSS EXAMINATION

The cross-examination period of a debate is a time when the person who is not going to speak next in the constructives questions the person who has just finished speaking. Consider cross examination an information exchange period - it is not the time to role play lawyer.

Cross examination may serve six objectives:
1. To clarify points.
2. To expose errors.
3. To obtain admissions.
4. To setup arguments.
5. To save prep time.
6. To show the judge how cool you are so they WANT to vote for you.

Most debaters tend to ignore the value of good cross-examination. Remember, 30% of the entire debate is spent in cross-examination -- it should be a meaningful and essential part of the debate. If nothing else, debaters tend to underestimate the importance that cross-examination may have on the judge. Cross-examination will indicate to the judge just how sharp and spontaneous the debaters are. Invisible bias will always occur in a debate round and judges would always like the sharpest team to win. Good, effective cross-examination of the opponents can play an important psychological role in winning the ballot of the judge. Be dynamic. Have questions and be ready to go, answer questions actively and with confidence whenever you can. The image you project will be very important to the audience/judge. This is the one opportunity the audience/judge has to compare you with opponents side-by-side.

GUIDELINES FOR ASKING QUESTIONS:
1. Ask a short Q designed to get a short A.
2. Indicate the object of your Q.
3. Don't telegraph your argument, don't make it too obvious.
4. Don't ask Q they won't answer properly."So, we win, right?"
5. Make Q seem important, even if it is just an attempt to clarify.
6. Politeness is a must -- emphasize the difference if they are rude.
7. Approach things from a non-obvious direction. Then trap them.
8. Mark your flow/notes as to what you want to question them about.
9. Avoid open ended Qs unless you are sure they are clueless.
10. Face the judge/audience, not your opponent.
11. CX answers must be integrated into your arguments made during a speech.

GUIDELINES FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS:
1. Concise A.
2. Refer to something you have already said whenever possible. This is safe.
3. Answer based on your position in the debate so far. Keep options open.
4. Don't make promises of what you or your partner will do later.
5. Qualify your answers.
6. Be willing to exchange documents read into the debate.
7. Answer only relevant questions.
8. Address the judge.
9. Try and not answer hypothetical Q. If they demand, say you will give a hypothetical A.
10. Signal each other, don't tag-team.
11. Don't say"I don't know,"say"I am not sure at this time...."

REBUTTALS
Most debaters, coaches, and judges would agree that rebuttals are the most difficult and yet the most important parts of the debate. Not only is there less time within each speech, but each debater has to sort through all of the issues to determine which ones are the most important ones! What a debater does or does not do in rebuttals will decide who wins the debate. Very few debaters (especially beginners) can hope to extend everything that happened in the constructive speeches. Debaters don't have to do that and just because a team may have dropped a point or an argument is not an automatic reason to vote against that team. What matters is the type of argument that is extended or dropped in rebuttals-this will determine the winner of the round.

Think about these four issues when rebuttals happen:
1. Which arguments have more weight at the end of the round?
2. Which outcomes (disads, counterplans) are more likely given lots of internal links?
3. What about time frame-what happens first?
4. What about the quality of evidence?

Here are some other helpful hints:
1. Avoid repetition. Don't just repeat your constructive arguments. Beat the other team's arguments and tell the judge why your arguments are better.
2. Avoid passing ships. Don't avoid what the other team said. You must clash directly with their responses.
3. Avoid reading evidence only. You must be explaining and telling the judge why these issues win the debate.
4. Avoid rereading evidence that has already been read in constructives. You can make reference to it by referring to it, but don't re-read it.
5. Avoid"lumping and dumping."Don't try to go for everything. You can't make 12 responses to each argument in a few minutes.
6. Be organized. Don't jump from issue to issue at random. Be specific and logical about winning issues.
7. Don't be a blabbering motormouth. Speak quickly but not beyond your ability. If you speak too fast, you will stumble and not get through as much.
8. Don't whine to the judge about fairness or what the other team might have done that you think is unethical. Make responses and beat them.
9. Don't make new arguments. You can read new evidence but you can't run new disadvantages or topicality responses. You are limiting to extending the positions laid out in the constructive speeches.
10. Use signposting . Make sure the judge knows where you are on the flowsheet. This is not the time to lose the judge on the flow.
11. Use issue packages. Organize your arguments into issue packages. Choose arguments which you want to win. Don't go for everything. Extend those arguments that you need to win.
12. Cross-apply arguments. If you dropped an argument in a prior speech that you think was important don't act like your losing. Cross-apply arguments you made somewhere else in the debate to answer it.