I had a hard time picking a chapter to read for this blog post because I am really interested in argumentation in law, religion, and politics. I decided to do my blog post on chapter 16 “Argumentation in Government and Politics” because I think this is a topic that really pertains to present times, especially if we take a look at President Trump, it has been made very clear that his argumentational ways are faulty. Political argumentation is defined in the text as “...the process of using verbal and visual arguments to influence the policy decisions of a political community.” (278) The most important thing to remember with political argumentation is that the main claims that are used are policy claims, claims that advocate for some kind of policy change. I think the most important part of political arguments is evidence and credibility together. In order for the audience to adhere to your claims as a political figure, the evidence you are presenting must be credible, and therefore having credible claims will make you seem like a more credible leader and people will more easily adhere to what you say. I especially think it is important to take a look at political argumentation in today's political climate because it is clear that many fallacies are often used and the way politicians argue is clearly faulty and relies on personal attacks, especially coming from President Trump.
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...
Comments
Post a Comment