Blog Post 5 - Chapter 6

          Chapter six informs us about the importance of building strong cases. In our daily lives, we often make arguments without the preparation prescribed by the textbook’s authors. For example, during debates with my friends, our arguments seldom resolve the issues that initiated the debate. While I previously attributed this discrepancy to our inability to see eye to eye, this chapter has made me realize that perhaps our debates do not get resolved because we have not accurately identified the ultimate purpose of our arguments. The text defines the ultimate purpose as “the ultimate objective of your argumentation” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 84). In other words, the ultimate purpose identifies the goals that we are trying to achieve. It is also the first step in building a strong case. The reason why the ultimate purpose is such a pivotal part of the process is because it allows us to have a “definition for victory” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 84). With a clear purpose, we know when the argument has been resolved.

            Identifying a clear purpose is not the only step in building a case. The next step is to state the proposition. A proposition is “a claim that expresses the judgement that decision makers are asked to accept or reject” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 84). Essentially, it is the argument that one is trying to gain adherence to. In some ways, the proposition is the means, while the ultimate purpose is the end. Both are equally important in the equation, and any case will not work without these two elements. To build stronger propositions, one must also be aware of presumptions and the burden of proof. Presumptions detail the beliefs that people already have. Knowledge of presumptions leads to the identification of who the burden of proof falls on. Such knowledge is fundamental in evaluating the type of evidence that one has to provide. Once these three steps are effectively achieved, any case brought forth should be both cogent and persuasive.

            Reflecting on a debate that I recently had with my roommates, it is clear how these three steps could have strengthened my case profoundly. The debate was over freedom of speech on college campuses, and whether the university could regulate speech from student groups. One side was claiming that the university could, while the other side was arguing against that proposition. Ultimately, the debate ended without a resolution, and it shifted to an argument about whether words on t-shirts were considered a form of expression. However, if we had clearly outlined the purpose of the debate, which was to analyze how the First Amendment applied to campuses, we could have continued the debate or avoided arguing over separate details like what expression was. In retrospect, one side’s purpose could have been to convince the other side that such regulations were possible, to a certain degree. Their proposition could have been that colleges are able to do so because of numerous Supreme Court opinions that have affirmed such regulations. A possible presumption that my friends could have had were that the First Amendment universally applies to all in America, regardless of venue. Hence, the burden of proof would have fallen on the side advocating for the school’s ability to establish that the Supreme Court has ruled, on numerous occasions, that schools can regulate speech to a certain extent, and that this was a widely accepted notion. If we had dedicated ourselves to the real purpose of deciding whether schools do or do not have the ability to regulate speech, we could have avoided a debate about whether t-shirts were considered expression, which should only have been discussed after establishing if school’s even have the ability to regulate student speech in the first place.

   

Source:

Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.