Skip to main content

Chapter 16


  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 decreased since he made inappropriate claims about media coverages and progressive actions towards the LGBTQ community. He keeps saying that many mainstream newspaper organizations like CNN is filled with fake news, and he uses this claim every time when he is asked by questions that he does not want to respond. In addition, there are news reports recently that the concept of transgender could be defined out of existence under Trump administration. Such these actions fail to build a trusting and satisfying image of a political figure. It is important for us to study political argumentation nowadays, for it helps the public to develop a better understanding of the necessity for participating in the political process and how we should use our rights to vote for suitable and capable candidates.
Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. Boston: Pearson.


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