Skip to main content

chap8

Values are important in argumentation because they are what people ultimately use as the foundation of their decisions. Whether decision makers stick with the values that they come into an argument with or the presenters convince them to adopt new values, the decision reflects the collective values of the decision making group because people prefer not to take actions that violate their own values. Furthermore, when the values held by decision makers do not align, they must make arguments among themselves, but ultimately the decision will reflect some values held within the group. Because of this idea that decisions lie fundamentally on values held by decision makers, they make for good starting points. In situations where values are held commonly among decision makers identifying starting points can be easy, but if not, establishing values to build off of can be an integral part of the argument itself. Understanding the audience and the values that they hold is crucial to the preparation of the argument and can aid in deciding how to allocate time spent on a given part of an argument.
Since values are based on personal experience and ideology, they are inherently various and also subject to change. Stemming from this is a sort of dilemma of using values in argumentation: While values carry great influence and are necessary to gain adherence, they are also unstable, and thus can create precedents that may make sense at the time, but often do not hold validity in the future. For example, as the value of a young, nuclear family, often held by Americans, dwindles, it has become less practical for young people to marry and have kids, and more practical for them to continue their education and earn a more prestigious career.  For this, many decisions do not stand up to the test of time because the values upon which they were made have been modified or replaced completely. While values are essential in gaining adherence in argumentation, they should be understood as non-static, and thus the decisions based on them, not forever concrete.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A
1 comment
Read more

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more