argumentation 101

Argumentation:

The act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion[1]


Argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally.[2]


Key Components Of Argumentation

A. Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.

B. Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived.

C. Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance

D. For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.

E. In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument. [3]


Argumentation vs. Debate

Argumentation is generally defined as “the art of influencing others, through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act asw we wish them to believe or act.” [4] It is the process of influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader, through spoken or written speech, by supplying him with reasons and stirring his feelings.

Debate, on the otherhand, is a formal direct oral contest in argumentation between two or more persons on a definite proposition at a definite time. [5] Debate is a formal controversy, not a mere verbal wrangling. In a mere verbal wrangling, no formalities are observed, and therefore no art is displayed. “Debate, in contrast with wrangling, demands the formality of extended and orderly discourse in the interchange of opinion and argument.” [6] Sometimes, debate is defined as an oral controversy on a definite question between opposing speakers (one or more on each side) who present their contentions in the presence of each other. The two sides are the Affirmative and the Negative.

In both cases, words are the medium used to appeal to the intellect and to the feelings. In argumentation, the medium is either the written or the spoken word. In a debate, the medium is the spoken word.

In argumentation, the opposing speakers may not be in each other’s presence; in a debate, the disputants must be in each other’s presence. Argumentation, therefore, is the broader term.

All debates are forms of argumentation; but not all forms of argumentation are debates. [7] Some authorities, however, maintain that debate “may be carried on in writing or in speech.”[8]

When Carlos P. Romulo and Claro M. Recto expressed in public discussions their opposing views on the foreign policy of the Republic of the Philippines, we used to read in the metropolitan papers or to hear comments referring to their controversy as a debate. Strictly speaking, Romulo and Recto never met in a debate.[9]
[1] merriam-webster dictionary
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
[3] id.
[4] O’ Neill, Laycock, and Scales, Arg. and Debate, p. 1
[5] Warren Choste Shaw, the Art of Debarte, p. 2.
[6] Ibid, p. 2
[7] A. Craig Baird, Pub. Discussions and Debate, p. 8
[8] McBurney, O’Neill, and Mills, Arg. and Debate, p. 2.
[9] The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Francisco M. Africa