Argumentation essay

Argumentation Essays

With the type of discourse called argument, humans explore their different views on any issue. The most ideal end of argument is to arrive at the best interpretation of a set of data and resolve issues under dispute. One person may affirm his or her reading of the facts; the other person may than respond with a counter reading point, counterpoint, thesis, antithesis, assertion, and denial. By this kind of dialogue, the argument proceeds, moving from assertion to other important elements: confirmation, concession, and refutation. By paying close attention to the opponent’s points, the disputants can refine the issues, understand them better, and come to some resolution. They may not agree with each other yet, but by arguing the issue carefully and responsibly, they have clarified and solidified their reasoning, testing it against strong opposition.

But argumentation can, like persuasion, be abused. Some formats for argumentative discussions seem to be programmed to ensure disagreement. In a formal debate, for example, the purpose of reaching clarification and resolution is not always an obvious end. Each team or each single debater is already committed to a position, which is defended as the best position, the one the audience should agree with. Debating tactics encourage competition, the debaters focusing on winning, becoming defensive or aggressively offensive, or losing sight of their purpose to explore all aspects of the issue to reach the most satisfactory resolution or answer. They resort to using flawed logic, biased statements, or invalid interpretation of data just to win the argument. The opponent’s arguments are unfairly slanted or oversimplified by labels and stereotypes. Debate is effective to highlight the debaters’ differences, but it rarely leads to satisfactory solutions to the problems being debated. Senators still have debates on the floor of Congress, but one must wonder if these do more than provide them with sound bites for the local news in their home states. The real decision-making and deal-cutting occur off stage, in the Senate hallways and offices, as freer discussion permits more valid argument, and the give and take of good minds momentarily forgetting public images and partisan definitions and focus on real solutions to real problems.

Focusing on finding the truth, as much as it is possible, and resolving issues requires one to understand and deal respectfully with other points of view. You do not need to agree with them, of course, but you need to know and understand what they are saying. Christian students sometimes think they should read only Christian writers—and, sometimes, only writers who are “certain kinds” of Christians. These students take a fearful or defensive stance toward any idea that they have not encountered, or heard approved of, from the authority figures of their beliefs. The modern evangelical Christian scholar Frank Gaebelein answers this affirmatively in his essay “The Debasement of Taste”:

The wholesale avoidance of all modern literature and entertainment will not do. Not everything the world does is corrupt. Under God’s common grace unbelievers write great novels and plays, paint beautiful canvases, compose fine music, and produce worthy motion pictures.

Even if we do not expect valid or good insights to come from writers or artists who are not Christian, are we justified in refusing to receive their works? Jesus requests water from the Samaritan woman, an ethnic group scorned by the Jews of His day, before He speaks to her about the water of life. Similarly, we should not be reluctant to know and appreciate and learn from the creative products of all humans, even if only to acquaint ourselves with enough knowledge to begin a dialogue. If you wish to discuss your differences, even your religious differences, with others, how can you do that effectively without taking care to hear and understand what they are saying?

Unfortunately, informal arguments seem less concerned with exploring issues and reaching resolutions than with proclaiming the “rightness” of the speaker. Our arguments with each other may become loud, emotional, and dramatic, and as individual positions are staked out and vigorously declared, the need to defend oneself leads to more and more intransigent positions. Rather than seeking to resolve issues or solve problems, typical arguers fall into prideful, ego-protecting declaration and even name-calling.

Slogans are built out of this need to proclaim one’s “rightness” to the world. Bumper stickers are an example of this kind of self-proclamation, not calling for rational discourse on a subject, but advertising a position, attitude, or cause supported by the one displaying the slogan. “America, love it or leave it” proclaims an either/or claim that equates thoughtful criticism with being unpatriotic. Indeed, most “either/or” declarations are faulty because “either/or” dismisses the full range of actions available. A democracy thrives on the ability of its citizens to be informed, to discuss rationally, to question, and to offer thoughtful suggestions and criticism. Unthinking allegiance to any party or cause represents not freedom, but slavery. Even God, as seen over and over again in Scriptures, allows people freedom of will.

Religious slogans, like religious jargon, usually put people off rather than attract them. Real dialogue about religious matters comes when humans address each other personally, with respect and mutual concern. Relating your religious beliefs in order to share them with others has little effect if you have not bothered to get to know them, their own beliefs, and their problems. If you want to speak meaningfully to them and have them listen to you, take the effort to open a personal discourse and listen to them; don’t just “do your duty” by quoting Scripture. Otherwise, rather than manifesting the love of Christ, your presence may convey an impression of smug self-righteousness.

To come to resolution on disputed issues, you need to understand the other person’s argument, the data he or she draws. In a written argument or thesis essay, stating the opposing side clearly and accurately is essential. Argue rationally and review these logical fallacies that often sideline an argument:

Don’t set up a “straw man,” a distorted version of the other’s ideas, to argue against.
Don’t confuse the issue by a “red herring,” that is, an irrelevant distraction from the main point.
Don’t “beg the question” by assuming basic issues that have not been previously established by both people arguing the question (refer to the earlier part of the chapter for a description of the abridged syllogism called an enthymeme).

A helpful way of understanding how these and other logical fallacies work is to note that some provide evasions of the real question or issue: “begging the question,” “red herring,” “ad hominem” (that is, arguing against the person rather than the issue at stake).

Other fallacies are oversimplifications of the argument or supporting material: “hasty generalizations,” “either/or fallacies,” “false analogies,” “stereotyping,” and the “slippery slope” (framing the issue with extreme consequences: “If we do this, it will consequently lead to more and more extreme measures, finally reaching an evil extreme”).

You can find examples of these fallacies in letters published in newspapers or magazines and in comments people make on radio or television talk shows, for many people feel intensely about subjects they know little about. And they feel free to express themselves on these subjects whether or not they have thought critically about the issues or have done needed research to become informed about the history or context of the issues.

You should review the section on logical thinking in your handbook (The Little Brown Compact Handbook, pt. 2, ch.11, pp. 109-111). It provides definitions and examples of various kinds of logical fallacies that you need to avoid. Refer also to the handbook for detailed information on writing persuasive and argumentative essays (The Little Brown Compact Handbook, pt. 2, ch.11, pp. 104-111).

The Toulmin Argument Pattern

A simple and useful pattern for presenting an argument orally or in writing was described by British philosopher, Stephen Toulmin, who held that an argument basically consists of three elements: claims, evidence, and assumptions (called “warrants” by Toulmin). Before listing these however, you must determine a subject that can realistically be argued, that is, an arguable subject. Subjects that are widely agreed on as being factual do not make for good argument subjects. To argue, for example, that George Washington was the first president of the United States, for example, would not interest an audience for whom this was already a well-known fact. An appropriate subject will have matter that can be contested—some will agree with one view of the subject, others will be able to credibly disagree with that view. For example, the Electoral College, a group that actually selects a United States president, taking into account the popular vote of each state. This is a subject that is truly arguable and so would make for an interesting subject.

The claim must be made about such a subject. In a student thesis essay, instructors generally advise that the claim be stated as a thesis sentence clearly in the first paragraph. This will let your readers know exactly what your aim is in the essay. The thesis sentence should also give some indication of your evidence and the order in which it will be presented. For example, a thesis sentence opposing the contemporary value of the Electoral College might read as follows:

The Electoral College should be abolished (claim), for it no longer functions as it was intended to by the Founding Fathers (evidence); it has not adapted to the modern U. S. society that comprises fifty states and an greatly expanded electorate from that of the late 17th century (evidence); it can work against democracy by allowing a candidate lacking a majority of the popular vote to be elected (evidence).

As you present the evidence supporting the thesis, you must indicate your assumptions about why the evidence you cite is relevant and compelling, that is, why does this evidence make my claim persuasive? One assumption you might have about the first evidence given in the example above, is that the Founding Fathers intended some controls on a popular vote due to anxieties about a purely popular vote. For the second evidence, you would need to cite why the expanded electorate brought about by the enlarged pool of voters created by such things as additions of states to the Union and women’s suffrage makes the Electoral College less effective and less relevant today. And, for the third evidence, you could show the basic unfairness of electing candidates who have won elections with a minority of votes, giving specific examples of such situations.

With the components of an arguable subject, a clear claim, sufficient and relevant evidence, you still need to make sure to fairly present the arguments counter to your claim, asserting and responding to them without distorting them with bias or factual misstatements. Your own argument will be strengthened as you engage and respond to the points from an opposing view.

(Consult your Little Brown Compact Handbook, pt.2, ch.11, pp.104-107 for more on the Toulmin argument pattern.)
Consult this site for more information about writing an argumentative essay.
Selections for Writing an Argumentative Essay
Link to logical fallacies.