Scribd
Upload
44 views20 pages

Argumentation - The Clash

The document summarizes different approaches to arguing and refuting arguments. It discusses skepticism versus cynicism, controlling the fight or flight response, different ways to disagree or refute an argument like counterarguments and refutations, types of arguments like enthymemes and syllogisms, and the Toulmin approach to argumentation. It also provides tips for arguing from the con side of an issue and credits its sources.

Uploaded by

April Anne Moncada
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views20 pages

Argumentation - The Clash

The document summarizes different approaches to arguing and refuting arguments. It discusses skepticism versus cynicism, controlling the fight or flight response, different ways to disagree or refute an argument like counterarguments and refutations, types of arguments like enthymemes and syllogisms, and the Toulmin approach to argumentation. It also provides tips for arguing from the con side of an issue and credits its sources.

Uploaded by

April Anne Moncada
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20

Chapter 3:

The clash
Contents
2

4. Toulmin Model
1. “Clashing” as 5. Approaches to
“Silence means refuting an
consent” argument
2. Levels of
clashing
3. Skepticism
1.
Approaching an
argument
To clash or to be silent
“
4

The maxim is Qui tacet


consentiret: the maxim of
the law is “Silence gives
consent.”

– Sir Thomas Moore


2.
Skepticism
As opposed to cynicism
6

Skeptic
a person inclined to question or doubt
accepted opinions (Oxford Languages)
7

Steps to understanding a new idea


1. Accept that the new information is
accurate to understand the new ideas.
2. Once the ideas are understood, then test
them to see if they are accurate.

(Dan Gilbert, 1991)


Four Key thoughts about skeptics
8

Skepticism follows
No position is staked
the procedure of
out ahead of time.
scientific inquiry
This allows for you to
looking to see if the
examine the
evidence provided in
argument with an
the argument
open mind and then
adequately supports
decide whether you
the claim.
accept it or reject it.
Four Key thoughts about skeptics
9

Skeptics are not


It is okay to change
cynics. Instead
your mind. After
Skeptics are curious,
listening to a new
but are cautious and
argument, with new
resist leaping to a
and additional
comfortable
evidence you can
conclusion.
now make a better
decision.
“
10

Cynics are distrustful of any advice or


information that they do not agree with
themselves. Cynics do not accept any
claim that challenges their belief
system. While skeptics are open-
minded and try to eliminate personal
biases, cynics hold negative views and
are not open to evidence that refutes
their beliefs. Cynicism often leads to
dogmatism.”
– Jamie Hale
11

Characteristics of cynics
➜ Biased
➜ Close-minded and full of themselves
➜ Irrational, self-opinionated
➜ Negative minded
➜ Self-centered, egoistic
➜ Hypocrites
➜ Distrustful
➜ Intolerant -- dogmatic
3.
Fight or flight
And how to control the situation
13

Functions of the amygdala


➜ Past memories of similar situations are
examined
➜ Adrenaline is pumped into the body
which prompts quicker physical reaction
➜ A surge of energy is experienced
➜ Stress hormones are activated
➜ Your pain threshold gets higher
14

Amygdala control: e + R = O
Event Reaction or Outcome
Some action that Response Result
has happened to
you Reaction: quick,
unthinking answer

Response: more
thought out
Ways to Disagree
15

5. Counterargument
6. Refutation
1. Name calling
7. Refuting the
2. Ad hominem
central point
3. Responding to
tone
4. Contradiction
16

Type of argument: Enthymemes


Two parts: an observation that leads to a
conclusion

Examples
1. If Teri exercises often, she will be
healthy.
2. Vote for John Doe; he won’t raise taxes.
17

Type of argument: Syllogism


A form of deductive reasoning that starts
with two initial propositions that lead to a
conclusion

Example:
All professors are brilliant.
Jim Marteney is a professor.
Jim Marteney is brilliant.
18

Toulmin
approach
to
argument

*No absolute
certainties
19

Arguing from the con-side


Demonstrate Reduce Use Scientific
The weaknesses or the The significance of the Method
problems of the affirmative problem or potential
Make sure you’re not misled
side; that there are not advantage
into thinking you know
enough reasons to change
something you don’t

Show: Non- Give a Counter Present Case


solution Argument Alternatives
Affirmative will not work or 1. Straight refutation
The con-side’s own
make problem worse
proposal 2. Defense of the status
quo with minor repairs
20

Credits
Special thanks to all the people who made
and released these awesome resources for
free:
➜ Presentation template by SlidesCarnival
➜ Contents from
Marteney, J. (2020, December 4). Book: Arguing Using Critical Thinking
(Marteney). Social Sci LibreTexts. https://1bestlinks.net/13Y9C.

You might also like