Skip to main content

chap8

Values are important in argumentation because they are what people ultimately use as the foundation of their decisions. Whether decision makers stick with the values that they come into an argument with or the presenters convince them to adopt new values, the decision reflects the collective values of the decision making group because people prefer not to take actions that violate their own values. Furthermore, when the values held by decision makers do not align, they must make arguments among themselves, but ultimately the decision will reflect some values held within the group. Because of this idea that decisions lie fundamentally on values held by decision makers, they make for good starting points. In situations where values are held commonly among decision makers identifying starting points can be easy, but if not, establishing values to build off of can be an integral part of the argument itself. Understanding the audience and the values that they hold is crucial to the preparation of the argument and can aid in deciding how to allocate time spent on a given part of an argument.
Since values are based on personal experience and ideology, they are inherently various and also subject to change. Stemming from this is a sort of dilemma of using values in argumentation: While values carry great influence and are necessary to gain adherence, they are also unstable, and thus can create precedents that may make sense at the time, but often do not hold validity in the future. For example, as the value of a young, nuclear family, often held by Americans, dwindles, it has become less practical for young people to marry and have kids, and more practical for them to continue their education and earn a more prestigious career.  For this, many decisions do not stand up to the test of time because the values upon which they were made have been modified or replaced completely. While values are essential in gaining adherence in argumentation, they should be understood as non-static, and thus the decisions based on them, not forever concrete.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Chapter 4 - The Nature of Arguments

Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next,  the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservation...
1 comment
Read more