Defining Argumentation
One of the first instruments that I learned was the saxophone. I loved the sound of it, but I eventually realized that there was a limitation to the instrument. Unlike a guitar or piano, you could only play one note at a time on a saxophone. The ability to have multiple notes interacting with each other, creating harmony and dissonance, brings music to another level. Playing multiple notes at once is known as a chord, and there are complicated discussions amongst musicians about composing music with chords.
Arguments are like chords in the sense that debaters use the combination of multiple propositions, whose meanings harmonize with each other to create an idea that is richer and more complex than any single proposition could ever be. In this lesson we are going to explore the defining characteristics of argumentation. This chapter will define argument, explore the essential elements of all arguments, and finally explain methods for modeling arguments.
The Definition and Context of Argument
By now, the importance of understanding the background of argument studies should be apparent. Knowing the background of argument studies points to a split in the theory of argument: one that attempts to approach arguments from a purely rational perspective (like symbolic logic), whereas the other explores natural utterances, or everyday, rhetorical arguments. It is the desire to study natural utterances that influences how this textbook defines what an argument is. The primary influence can be seen in the two dimensions of argument that shape its definition. One level deals primarily with the structure of argument, and the other describes conditions in which arguments occur. These two levels have long been distinguished between “making an argument” and “having an argument,” commonly distinguished as argument1 and argument2, respectively. It is important to realize that it is all but impossible to remove one type of argument from the other. Therefore, both are reflected in the treatment of the definition of argument.
Defining an argument is an essential first step in argumentation studies, but this is easier said than done. One thing that complicates the definition of argument is that people use the word to mean different things in everyday discussions. Hearing the word “argument” brings to mind conflicts, bad interpersonal experiences, or worse. Another complication is that there are many different definitions that have been provided in the past. Some of these definitions are so dense that they hardly seem useful for students that are just beginning their education in argumentation studies.
Example of complicated definition for “argument”
“An argument is a type of discourse or text— the distillate of the practice of argumentation —in which the arguer seeks to persuade the Other(s) of the truth of a thesis by producing the reasons that support it. In addition to this illative core, an argument possesses a dialectical tier in which the arguer discharges his dialectical obligations.”
— Ralph Johnson
Rather than presenting all of those different definitions for the word argument, I wish to propose a working definition that incorporates all the essential characteristics of an argument. An argument is any combination of propositions aimed at persuading an audience to a particular viewpoint, belief, or action; and, that particular conclusion is claimed to be supported by the other propositions.
This definition explains the core of an argument, but there are additional characteristics of arguments that are worth exploring in more detail if it going to be useful to the study of arguments. Specifically, it is useful to identify the characteristics of the contexts where arguments are made. If someone combines a series of statements and has no intention of defending those statements, then one may question whether an argument was properly made. As a consequence, we identify four characteristics of situations that often are managed with or characterized by arguments: controversy, invention, adherence, and reason
Mini Glossary
Argument: Any combination of propositions aimed at persuading an audience to a particular viewpoint, belief, or action; and, that particular conclusion is claimed to be supported by the other propositions.
Controversy
The first thing that the average person assumes about any argument is that the arguer is discussing an issue that has room for disagreement or controversy. In other words, an issue about which there is uncertainty. This assumption is at the root of peoples’ common understanding of what it means to “have an argument.” Also, when anyone claims to make an argument ‘for’ something, it is reasonable to assume that there is the potential for someone else to make an argument ‘against’ that same thing. The definition provided above uses the term ‘to persuade,’ which implies that there are competing alternatives for the audience to choose from and that the arguer is advocating on behalf of one of those options at the expense of the others. One might describe argumentation as taking place against a background of controversy.
There are topics that pop to mind when thinking about controversy: abortion, the death penalty, immigration policy, etc. But, controversy exists in all sorts of issues that are not typically considered controversial. Even in mathematics, there is controversy. Math is often taught as a universal language; something that “just is.” But, controversy surrounded the creation of some of the simplest of mathematical terms. Legend has it that when Hippasus discovered the mathematical concept known as the ‘irrational number,’ he was drowned at sea for contradicting established mathematical principles. Furthermore, there is still controversy amongst mathematicians about contemporary mathematical problems. Other things are not controversial now, but were very controversial in the past. It is not very controversial to say that slavery is immoral, but that was a very controversial statement in America prior to the Civil War. In fact, the issue of morality and slavery were the focus of several debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858, when both men were campaigning for the same senate seat in Illinois.
Lincoln Douglas Debates
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas participated in a series of seven debates that focused mainly on the subject of slavery. It would uncommon to see, in a contemporary academic debate, someone defend chattel slavery outright. But, prior to the civil war, such positions were very common.
Invention
A second addition to this definition is that an argument is made with the goal of creating new knowledge. Acknowledging a controversy is one thing; creating an argument which makes a contribution to understanding, and hopefully decision-making about controversy is another. Without the creation of arguments, there is no way to analyze arguments. An arguer is essentially taking information that was collected prior to the argument and combining it with other information to create something new and valuable. This new and valuable creation is greater than the sum of its parts; in other words, a combination of propositions carries information in the combination which is lost if the statements are separated. Another important factor regarding invention is the concept of uncertainty. Creating new information comes with the risk that you might be proven wrong. Of course, if we only spoke when we are certain about the outcome, then that would eliminate any space for disagreement, and therefore unreasonably constrain arguments.
Adherence
The third contextual element important to realize about arguments is how people and propositions have a tendency to ‘stick together.’ Adherence can be thought of as the combination of three characteristics: (1) two things are next to each other, (2) they resist being parted, and (3) the origin of the resistance lies within or between them. Adherence emerges in a number of different ways within arguments. First, when arguers adhere to the arguments they are making. Arguments are not neutral like simple observations; arguers take a position and offer an audience direction. There are ways to discuss controversial topics without making an argument. For instance, one could report about issues surrounding the abortion controversy without taking a position (e.g., number of abortions performed per year, average costs of abortion services, etc.). A question is another example of a non-argument. Questions can incite controversy, but the fact that a question requests information rather than directs an audience means that it is not an argument. Second, the goal of arguers is to have an audience adhere to the claims they make. The audience focus of adherence was made popular through the works of prominent theorists Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. They even classify different types of adherence based upon whether or not an arguer is intending an argument for a particular or universal audience. But, propositions also stick together to form clusters, making the third type of adhesion. These “clusters” of propositions can be thought of in terms of the Toulmin model articulated later in the chapter.
Reason
The fourth thing to add to this definition of argument is that arguments are supported by reason. This is what distinguishes argumentation from mere assertion or proclamation. Consider when an athletic coach barks commands at their athletes. The coach does not explain why he or she is demanding their athlete perform a particular action, so they are not engaging in an argument. The fact that arguments use reasoning is also what distinguishes them from threats of force. In the definition it states that one of the statements is supported by the others, this means that those other statements act as the rationale for the conclusion the arguer hopes the audience will reach. If one fails to supply reason for their argument, it is no longer an argument but an assertion.
We refer to arguments and argumentation with such ease, it is surprising to realize how complex these terms really are. The word argument is used to mean subtly different things in different contexts, the definition of it is in dispute, and there are multiple subjective characteristics that complicates understanding. But, with this complexity comes depth and richness. Music theorists are still debating about the definition of a chord, and communication theorists will continue to dispute the definition of argument, but regardless of the definitions of either of these concepts, a chord and an argument exists, and you know it when you hear it.
The Kitchen Debates
U.S. Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. In 1958, the United States and Russia agreed to exchange exhibits in order to show citizens what life was like in each of the superpower countries at the time. Nixon was advised to emphasize the contrast between American idealism and Soviet materialism. He chose, instead, to focus on the material wealth in America. Many considered this a brilliant move. He effectively undercut some fundamental tenets common to the field of communism; namely, that of “historical materialism.” Understanding the propositions that define a field of argument proves to be a very useful skill when developing an approach to an upcoming debate.