Skip to main content

Chapter 10

Chapter ten of the textbook focuses extensively on the refutation of arguments. It discusses the process used to refute an argument in an effective way. The chapter talks about refutation as a cooperative and constructive process and goes into detail on what the authors call the essential principles of the refutation process. It includes the idea that all parties are given notice prior to the decision so that they can prepare, everyone has an equal chance to be heard. All parties have the right to examine and criticize the arguments of the other parties. The decision makers only hear the arguments when all parties are present. People do not make their decisions on their own causes. The final decision is delayed until the entire process has taken place. This basis for argument and refutation is very interesting and useful when considering the process.
I think that taking this process for refutation as a cooperative and constructive process and searching for it in the real world is very interesting. In modern political discourse we often have different parties challenging the ideas and beliefs of the other parties that exist. Naturally refutation is essential to this process of differentiation and argumentation in political discourse. I think that this is interesting to look at because it is difficult to find this process in our discourse. You watch television and on many news shows that claim to be fair and balanced you find one party talking over the other and preventing both sides from being heard equally. I think that this is an important thing to consider and looking at when observing political discourse.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 12, 2018 at 2:57 PM

    I also found the refutation of arguments to be very intriguing and I think that it is interesting to find refutation in everyday life. Overall, the cooperation and constructive process of refutation is beneficial to both parties because it allows for an equal playing field for each party and gives the arguers time to understand their purpose. Personally, I have never been in a situation where it was necessary for me to refute a topic in a formal setting, but if I ever were to need to it would be very beneficial to be able to prepare my statements. Also, because I am not very loud spoken, an even playing field would be nice as well so my opinions could be heard too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brooke GenzlerNovember 14, 2018 at 6:49 AM

    First, I want to say good job on summarizing what refutation is in your own words. I agree with everything you said, but I wish you gave more of your own insight instead of focusing too much on explaining the definitions. I like though how you tied refutation to politics, especially with everything that is going on I thought it was appealing that you went about that route. I on the other hand did not, which made your post interesting to me. What really stuck out to me was when you were talking about how parties like to talk over one another and do really let the other side be heard, this is something I always found very unprofessional and have never understood when it comes to debates. I agree with you that it is not fair or balanced what so ever and intact I think they do it to show dominance or power. In my own opinion I think it just shows a lack of disrespect. I believe that both sides should get an equal time to share their points, but in a professional manner. I think of more when a prosecution and defense team give their final closing statements, not one of them would ever interrupt the other mid sentence because thats just not curiosity. Thank you for sharing, your post shed a lot of light on refutation in relation to politics which is very relevant right now.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Building

Chapter 6 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making focuses on the steps required in building a case. Among the concepts that are discussed, visualization stands out as one of the most important. On page 101, the authors even state “Powerful arguments are only half of the job in preparing a case or presentation. The other half is developing a convincing vision through which you can tell the story of your ultimate purpose” In other words, having a great argument alone is not going to necessarily gain you adherence. Instead, it needs to be supplemented with a story that vividly shows the decision maker the outcome if they were to agree to the proposition.   The chapter goes on to say that to create a powerful vision you must know the decision maker’s narrative of the subject you are arguing about. The example that is given is college. Some decision makers might have had the greatest time of their lives in college during which they made a ton of friends and found love. On the ...
1 comment
Read more