In chapter 8, we began talking about values and how they affect arguments. Not all arguments are based off values but they can be. For instance, many people argue what they think is right and what they believe in. This factors into an argument because this is hard to overcome in my opinion because some people are so determined that their values are right. They do not want to hear the opposing side of the argument. Values in an argument can either be stated or implied. I think implied values are what people normally see in arguments. People normally do not explicitly state their beliefs, they normally just say things that let you know what they believe in. For example, when someone states, “Women deserve the same pay as men for the same work.” This shows that they obviously believe in justice and rights for women. For instance, they didn’t have to state out what they actually believe in but the statement they made allowed you to see it. Values can sometimes act as a very credible source for a claim if you are backing it up very well. Because most of them are personal beliefs and it could relate to you opposing arguer, so therefore, they might see the argument from your standpoint. It could give your argument adherence. These are the most effective values in any argument, the ones that relate to the decision makers. I see values as a huge thing in today’s arguments because people always use their belief systems and things they grew up learning in arguments to try to win them.
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...
Hi Eric, I enjoyed reading your post this week and believe you brought up some relevant points when evaluating values and their impact on arguments. You mention how values can be either implied or stated. I would agree that most implied values are not usually stated directly, but the way individuals phrase their arguments imply certain values. For example, if someone is pro-life (relating to the abortion topic) they don't necessarily have to state that they are pro-life, instead they can state things like "Life beings at contraception" or "a fetus is considered to have life". This is example is pretty similar to yours in regards to justice and equal women rights. Lastly, I would also agree to an extent that the most effective values used in an argument are those which relate to the decision makers. I believe that values that can be proved to be important or relatable to the decision makers can also be very powerful. For example, if an individual presents an argument and supports it with values that are meaningful enough to impact the decision makers, then the decision makers might be conveyed even if the values don't line up exactly with their values.
ReplyDelete