Skip to main content

Chapter 16


I decided to write this blog on Chapter 16, “Argumentation in Government and Politics” because I believe argumentation is strongly present in the political scene. As mentioned in the chapter, “one of the defining characteristics of political argument is that it always aims at policy”(pg. 258).  I would agree with this claim since many political leaders aim to create and implement new policies. For instance, a political leader might appear before a state legislative committee to have their policy regarding new tax cuts pass. Additionally, Aristotle defined five categories of political argument, “ finance, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports, and the framing of laws” (pg. 258). In my opinion, the most difficult political argument to present before an audience would be the framing of laws since you not only need facts, but you also need to connect how these policies will benefit most of the public. Furthermore, a big part about politics includes political debates, where political leaders present claims against each other regarding a specific argument. Political debates also include a large amount of refutation since there is a high degree of disagreement when it comes to topics such as health care, taxes, foreign policy, and environmental protection. “Argumentation in government and politics includes a variety of situations, from a televised presidential campaign commercial to a newspaper advertisement for a local city council candidate, from a congressional hearing to a mayors’ debates” this is important to consider because political argumentation is all around us and it is important for the audience to be aware.
As discussed in the chapter, “a well-developed argument, or a new way of looking at an issue that strikes at the center of the policy, can influence undecided members” (pg. 267). This is important to consider as an arguer because in many political debates the view of undecided members can be shifted if the claims made are strong and supported by credible claims. Credibility is  important when creating an argument, even in government and politics.

Comments

  1. I totally agree with your claim that argumentation plays a big part on the political scene. I think argumentation is seen throughout the political world because of the two sides of political parties. Having two different parties brings in the conflict of having two different ideas. This causes the political world to have those debates and claims on new policies because the two parties view the world completely different. That’s why the refutation you mention in your post plays a big role in these debates as well. Also, to go along with your statements on argumentation in politics, I agree it is seen a lot as well in their claims to get things pass through congress. I think if you wanted to see argumentation at its finest and get a better understanding of it visually, I think watching something political is the best way to attain that knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey!
    I really agree with the fact that proper argumentation is needed in politics and it is very important. I think argumentation in the context of politics so interesting. You would assume that things such as political debates would be organized in a very orderly fashion and that the common rules of argumentation would be applied, but that is not the case at all. We often see politicians using an unbelievable amount of fallacies in their arguments and rebuttals which seems crazy to me. This is why I also took a look at this chapter, it is so hard to wrap my mind around the fact that politicians are actually really bad arguers. Like ou have stated, political argumentation takes form in many different forms and it's interesting to see the ways in which different aspects of argumentation shows up in these different ways.

    ReplyDelete

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...

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...