Skip to main content

Chapter 10


I think this chapter on refutation is a good reminder of the importance of knowing your audience and building a strong case.  As the textbook says, refutation is not a bad thing.  In fact, refutation may actually be a necessary part of argumentation.  It is essentially designed to be sure that your argument is as strong as possible.  In order to be sure that your argument can stand up to refutation, it is important to keep in mind the goals and priorities of your audience and the decision makers.  If you can try to imagine what is most important to the decision makers, you can be prepared to answer their questions surrounding their focus points.  Also, refutation forces us to be prepared to provide support that our argument than any opposing argument.  Essentially, knowing that refutation will be a part of the decision making process, we are forced to know as much about our position and the opposing positions. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 14, 2018 at 8:47 AM

    I think you make several strong points about refutation as a general concept, however there are many smaller processes that feed into this larger concept of refuting an opposing argument. The book covers seven different fundamental points that have been socially created and implemented throughout years of practice. In its simplest form, refutation must meet the seven points. These essential points for refuting an argument in my own words are...

    1.) All groups must know about the decision that is being made and how to prepare.
    2.) Each group is given equal opportunity to speak
    3.) Both sides are given a chance to examine and criticize the opposing factions support, materials, and general argument
    4.) Decision makers are only listening to relevant arguments from the parties involved in the debate
    5.) Decision makers are not people for their own cause
    6.) All factions agree to wait for a final decision until the critical decision making process is complete.
    7.) All parties agree to accept the final decision despite their inclination or preferences.

    With these social expectations, we have a consistent structure for implementing refutation as a responsive, fluid, and effective framework to disprove an opposing argument or statement. This function is crucial in argumentation to properly support your argument and negate the other group’s or faction’s conflicting argument.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a 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

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more