Values come in many different forms that are up to the individual to decide if they give value to something or not, and because of this it is often difficult at times for arguers to persuade and evidence can be used to help justify their claims. These values that the arguers use can be associated with positive and negative values that they give to their argument in order to either support or attack an argument. For example, using negative words or phrases like random or chance, or positive ones like certain and creative, are used to associate your argument with values that you may have. Values are not limited to intangible words but can also be concrete examples such as the person, group, or object to provide you with an example of an evidence that is easy to comprehend because of it’s attributes or values it/they have as an individual or unit. Values are very complex and layered, and are more than likely different from person to person and country to country. They are a mixture of material and inmaterial things that we arrange respectively in correlation to each other about what we think has meaning in our lives. This list can look very different from one another but is an invaluable tool for giving or arguments meaning.
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
Hi Scott! I really enjoyed reading your blog post this week. I feel like you covered a lot of important points regarding values; especially in connection to 'negative' and 'positive' values. I actually focused my blog on the same terms, and I don't really have anything to add to your definition/analysis because we were on the same page throughout.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that you touched on in your blog in a more in depth way than I did was how values differ between people, places, etc. I believe that I touched on how different people have different values, and it's important for the person presenting an argument to know what values the audience holds in order to shape their argument in an effective way. However, there was a key phase that you wrote that I found very interesting. You said that values are very complex and layered. I didn't touch on that directly in my blog, and I think that you bring up a really good point. It's important for arguments not to be shaped with assumptions that values are black and white. As we both know, values can differ from person to person and will be shaped by their lives and experiences. That being said, all values will be formed with different concepts, limitations, worldviews, and maybe even definitions, in mind. I'm glad that you pointed that out.