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 topic of what an argument revolves around. One of Aristotle’s topics is framing of laws, this is certain,y a topic that is being discussed in present day political settings on a global level. A few more of Aristotle’s categories are war and peace, finance and national defense, all of which are basic topics that are being discussed in this day and age. It was interesting to learn about how aspects that you would think only is a part of the political scene can be related to many different situations and on a daily basis.
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
Comments
Post a Comment