Skip to main content

Chapter 16


  In Chapter 16, the authors of the textbook talk about argumentation in the political sphere, which is the oldest recorded argumentation sphere. In general, political argumentation is a process of “using verbal and visual arguments to influence the policy decisions of a political community” (p. 278), and it is characterized by the use of policy claims. I am particularly interested in the third major subspheres of political argumentation, which is political campaign. It involves not only complicated policy issues but also images of candidates. I personally believe that the most important element of political campaigns is credibility. Candidates must be well prepared with solid evidence and stories, so that they could present credible political claims and develop convincing images toward the public. All the slogans and content candidates say could be vital for the success of their political campaign. For example, the approval rating of the president Trump has been decreased since he made inappropriate claims about media coverages and progressive actions towards the LGBTQ community. He keeps saying that many mainstream newspaper organizations like CNN is filled with fake news, and he uses this claim every time when he is asked by questions that he does not want to respond. In addition, there are news reports recently that the concept of transgender could be defined out of existence under Trump administration. Such these actions fail to build a trusting and satisfying image of a political figure. It is important for us to study political argumentation nowadays, for it helps the public to develop a better understanding of the necessity for participating in the political process and how we should use our rights to vote for suitable and capable candidates.
Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. Boston: Pearson.


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