COMM 3615: Argumentation (FA18)

For this week's reading I chose to do my blog post about Chapter 12. I was really interested in the chapter and thought that some of the vocabulary was really important to this argumentation course. I like how they bring up the concept of commonplaces and bring it back around to previous chapters 2 and 4, they do a good job in our book of connecting terms using different scenarios and showing you how they're relevant. Another crucial concept to this chapter is the term narratives. Narratives in argumentation of the law are simply the construction of a story or a case built up from evidence in support of their client. These narratives are carefully framed stories in order to catch their client in the best light possible, the lawyer must also be able to connect elements from their narrative to the case in order for the jury to see that their client is innocent. I also thought the concept of filed in a timely matter was also interesting, in this specific case they discussed how th

In religion throughout history, argumenttion has been seen throughout each one for some time. In religion argumentation is key because to have faith in anything you must understand the key values in it and what is it about. So therefore, argumentation is the best way to answer those questions about a religion you want to put your faith in. The major questions you must ask yourself within religuon to get a better understanding is: What is the nature of God? What is the nature of human beings? What is moral behavior, the religious life? What are sin, evil, and the meaning of suffering? What is the human relationship to God? And what is the role of the church? These questions will get you to understand your religion better or seek information about another religion. In overall, argumentation in religion is more of you getting a understanding of the religion to put your faith into it. Argumentation helps that by allowing you to seek out research on the religion and get a better comprehensi

Chapter 12’s focus on argumentation as it is used in the legal sphere was especially interesting to me because I intend on going to law school and becoming a lawyer, and have taken law classes that cover many of the same concepts that are outlined in this chapter. What is especially interesting to me is the idea that argumentation in the legal sphere isn’t necessarily used to make decisions that are the most fair, but rather the decisions that will cause the least chaos. Courts in the United States follow the mantra of stare decisis , which is a latin phrase that means “let the decision stand”. Because there are little to no statutes in civil law, courts have to make decisions based on what they think to be the best decision due to the facts and circumstances. In order to speed up the process and avoid bogging down the court system with debates over issues that have been addressed before, courts follow stare decisis by making decisions in line with decisions made in previous similar

In the section on maintaining the story I found the global warming example interesting, but also telling. In the example, conservative strategist Frank Luntz is quoted saying "the scientific debate is closing but it is not yet closed, [t]here is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science" (Rieke et al., 272). This statement constitutes an admission, a defense, and a reveal of the strategy of some conservative politics. This quote is from 2003, so it is old, but it is interesting that he could say that there is any  scientific debate about climate change. There was no debate; the consensus existed then as it does now. The phrase "challenge the science" is one of the most backwards things I have ever read. A person with no experience can only pose a threat to science by maintaining their position in spite of facts. With no firm basis in facts, it seems that one can still maintain their argument by simply repeating themselves. Effectively, this tactic creat

The legal world sometimes seems like it's the ideal world. It's a sphere where the good and the bad fight it out and in the end (hopefully) justice, and the good, triumph. However the legal argumentation is not free from subjectivity and story-telling. Though we have discussed earlier in the semester how personal accounts are often seen as not substantial, the account a lawyer tells the jury and the courtroom is also in a way, personal. The defendant and the plaintiff bring their side of the facts. Meaning, although both parties may be discussing and recounting the same event, their different variations of the truth of the event gives the facts of the story meaning and reputability. The "truth of the matter" is not so easy to parse out. And often times, there are multiple truths and hundreds of vantage points. Despite this however, the judges and/or the jury must decide which set of facts composed in which narrative are the most convincing and the most likely to repli

I ended up choosing to make this post about chapter 16 of the book, which revolves around argumentation within the field of politics. In the chapter they mention how political choices are made not only within the field of politics, but also in many other different situations such as for families to professional organization. One always tried to argue ones case and why the other person should agree with you, this can take place in a business meeting, or even just a family having a discussion around the dinner table. Which if you look at the basics of political argumentation, there are a lot similarities of what makes up an argument. Within politics there are often made policy claims which means that someone wished to change something about a certain topic. This type of discussion and policy claim often takes place within families as well as organizations. The chapter also brings up Aristotle and him having a certain amount of argumentation topics which more often than not is the basic t

In Chapter 13, the authors of the text discuss argumentation in science. They stress that scientific methods are best when we try to make an understanding of our world accessible to ourselves and the people around us. The authors remark, “Scientific standards for evidence and argument are held up as the way to understand what the natural world is like” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 204). Science provides an extremely persuasive narrative, and the authors believe that this is because science appears so consistent with many of our society’s core values like knowledge, order, usefulness, prediction, and especially rationality. When we combine these values, we make rational decisions that ultimately are useful to us. I believe this is why we popularly emphasize argument with approaches that are based in thinking oriented around scientific methods of reasoning. Scientific approaches to argumentation don’t only appear in labs or a physics lecture, either. We use these approaches commonly

Argumentation in science talks a lot about the evidence side of things and how to provide a argument through science. With science you can use receive testimony and statistics. These are both things that we have talked about earlier in the year and are important aspects of this chapter. Statistics in science is important because "arguments are frequently based on statistical probability and are always open for further questioning" (Pg.218). When a person can make an argument and provide statistical evidence to that argument it makes their argument stronger. For example if I said "money grows on trees" most people would shoot down my argument claim. But if I said " 2/3 scientists state that money grows on trees" and then provide a credible source, more people are reluctant to believe what I am saying. Therefore it's important for scientist to require statistics from their data or labs etc to help support an argument. Whereas testimony, "stands alon

In this blog post I will talk about Argumentation in Law. Aristotle defines Forensic rhetoric as one that deals with questions of the past and that is what we use in legal arguments. Legal argumentation deals with claims about what has happened in the past and finds facts about what has happened that help them explain what had happened. In a legal argument the narratives presented by each side are based on the facts found and are therefore trust worthy of the court. In a legal argumentation the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff one who brings the case and not on the defendant. It is the prosecutor/plaintiff’s job to provide enough facts and evidence that the court believes it to be true. And can make the decision without any doubt. Another important part of a legal argument is the time. When dealing with legal matters things have to be done in a timely manner otherwise the court can reject to bear the case. The example that comes to my mind is the Kavnaugh hearing and Dr. fo

For this weeks blog post, I will be focusing on Chapter 12: Argumentation in Law and the concept of using narrative in legal argumentation, specifically regarding federal civil law. There are many aspects about narrative in law that are distinctive and very different from what most people would consider a narrative to be. Narrative in law is a matter of presenting evidence in a specific manner that would persuade lawmakers, jurors, and other decision makers to grant adherence to the given claim. The use of narratives in this specific sphere of argumentation is very unique compared to other spheres. There are many outside factors that contribute to the specific construction of narratives in law such as time, validity, technicality, consistency, and more. Although many of those aspects apply to general argumentation, they are much more specified in legal cases because of the specific rules in a court of law. Narratives are used when a lawyer is representing their client and have to con

Argumentation in Business is something that can be complicated when defining what success is. According to the textbook there are 3 basic beliefs about what make a business successful. These beliefs are respect the individual, provide the best customer service of any company in the world, and drive for superiority in all things (pg. 242). These are fundamental principles that can provide a business with top success in anything they do. In argumentation of business success there are several indicators of what is making the business succeed or fail. One of these indicators is sign, sign can be used in business to measure a common trend within the consumers or the business profits. Sign is different from cause and effect in the way that the sign may indicate something without contributing to the cause (Pg. 251). For example, if Nike released a new pair of sneakers and the customers are giving great feedback on the product, then that could be a sign of future success. The only issue that c

I decided to write this blog on Chapter 16, “Argumentation in Government and Politics” because I believe argumentation is strongly present in the political scene. As mentioned in the chapter, “one of the defining characteristics of political argument is that it always aims at policy”(pg. 258).  I would agree with this claim since many political leaders aim to create and implement new policies. For instance, a political leader might appear before a state legislative committee to have their policy regarding new tax cuts pass. Additionally, Aristotle defined five categories of political argument, “ finance, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports, and the framing of laws” (pg. 258). In my opinion, the most difficult political argument to present before an audience would be the framing of laws since you not only need facts, but you also need to connect how these policies will benefit most of the public. Furthermore, a big part about politics includes political debate

  In Chapter 16, the authors of the textbook talk about argumentation in the political sphere, which is the oldest recorded argumentation sphere. In general, political argumentation is a process of “using verbal and visual arguments to influence the policy decisions of a political community” (p. 278), and it is characterized by the use of policy claims. I am particularly interested in the third major subspheres of political argumentation, which is political campaign. It involves not only complicated policy issues but also images of candidates. I personally believe that the most important element of political campaigns is credibility. Candidates must be well prepared with solid evidence and stories, so that they could present credible political claims and develop convincing images toward the public. All the slogans and content candidates say could be vital for the success of their political campaign. For example, the approval rating of the president Trump has been dec