Arguing Generatively and Persuasively

Charles Paine, Professor, University of New Mexico

Richard Johnson-Sheehan, Professor, Purdue University

Welcome: Arguing Today Controlling metaphor for argument: “Argument is

War”

Consequences of this metaphor “Yes it is” “No it isn’t” quarrels Battles of sound bites and gotchas Derisions of alternative views Silence Refusal to participate

If argument is a battle of attrition, why would anyone willingly participate if they could avoid it?

Are Arguments Really Wars?

No. Of course not.

One side of an argument is almost never declared the winner or

loser. The need to attack or defend is the exception, not the norm.

People are rarely persuaded to change their minds about

controversial topics.

Great majority of arguments are really conversations among

people who agree more than they disagree.

So, why do we primarily teach students how to “defend” their

claims, “confront” the ideas of others, “attack” weak points,

and “reinforce” their positions.

Origins of the “Argument = War” Metaphor

Walter Ong on the “Litigious Greek World”

[A]n assembly, a getting together to discourse, was rather essentially a mobilization for a contest. The assembly came together to debate, to match pros and cons, to struggle, not fatally, but seriously and in dead earnest, man against man. —Fighting for Life (43-44)

Here’s the Point

Argument as war is deeply embedded in our students’ consciousness and communication.

Helping students re-conceptualize the nature of argument requires more than just telling them.

In general, today’s argument textbooks are based on the “argument is war” metaphor, usually referring to other kinds of argument as “alternative forms of argument.”

On “Textbook Argument”

These textbook author-editors […] contrast argument marked by quarreling, fighting, winning, defeating opposition, and working against others with mature reasoning, civil conversation, mediation, and truth seeking. […]But a closer look at argument-based textbooks reveals a much more traditional definition of argument, even in those texts in which the author-editors seem to be consciously moving away from [“argument as quarreling”] definition[s].A. Abby Knoblauch, “A Textbook Argument: Definitions of

Argument in Leading Composition Textbooks,” CCC 2011.

What Should Students Learn about Argument?

How to listen carefully to the views of others

How to read closely, so they understand what others are saying

How to critically analyze and assess the merits of all sides of an

issue.

How to weigh the available evidence

How to figure out what they themselves believe and why they

believe it

How to express their views clearly to others

What Do We Really Want Students to Learn?

Properly taught, argumentation becomes a “habit of mind” that our students can transfer to their other college courses, their careers, and their civic lives.

Properly taught, argumentation should also prepare them to live, work, and succeed in the highly networked and multimodal worlds that they are entering.

A new approach to argument seems especially important in a quickly evolving world of virtual classrooms and workplaces, social networking, and new media, where arguments are much more dialogic and cooperative.

Argument Awareness in a Nutshell

Argument, like all communication, is shaped by particular contexts, purposes, and audiences.

The qualities of a “good” argument are always context specific, and these qualities—what counts as good argument—are shaped by the values, needs, goals, and ideologies.

Argument Awareness as a “Threshold

Concept” A threshold concept is “akin to passing

through a portal” that leads to “previously inaccessible ways of thinking about something.” (Meyers and Land, 9)

Threshold Concepts Are. . .

Transformative—shift how learners see the world

Integrative—exposes previously hidden interrelatedness of something

Irreversible—there is no going back, no “unlearning”

Liminal—students move toward and through them

Troublesome—learners may resist them because they require them to question previous perspectives

“Troublesome” Knowledge: Getting

StuckInsights gained by learners as they cross thresholds can be exhilarating but might also be unsettling, requiring an uncomfortable shift in identity, or, paradoxically, a sense of loss.

(Meyer, Land, and Baillie, Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning, 2010

How to Help Students Move Forward

The Spectrum of Argument

All arguments have both generative and persuasive qualities. Some, however, are more generative in nature, while others are more persuasive.

A Better Approach to Argument

Generative Arguments, or “power with” arguments

Persuasive Arguments, or “power over” arguments

Generative Arguments

Generative Approach (Power With)

Generative arguments are conversations that happen within groups, teams, or networks, both large and small. In generative arguments, people discuss issues, generate new ideas, share experiences, and strive toward consensus in an open-ended way. These kinds of arguments include discussions, team projects, negotiations, brainstorming sessions, planning meetings, and social networking. They happen in meeting rooms, in cafes, through e-mail or blogs, on Facebook or Twitter, and other places where people gather to talk about issues. Generative arguments are sometimes called “power-with”  arguments because the people involved are working together to build a mutual understanding and sort out their differences.

Persuasive Arguments

Persuasive Approach (Power Over)

Persuasive arguments happen when an individual, a team, or an organization is trying to influence other people to believe something or take specific actions. Persuasive arguments include advertisements, opinion essays, legal cases, political speeches, sales pitches, business proposals, recommendation reports, and sermons. These arguments happen in political events, news websites, law courts, legislatures, corporate boardrooms, and on television. They are sometimes called “power-over”  arguments because the writer or speaker is attempting to exert power over others with words and images.

Strategies for Generative Arguments

Strategy 1: Build a sense of identification.

Strategy 2: Frame the issue to your advantage.

Strategy 3: Tell interesting stories.

Strategy 4: Negotiate disagreements

Generative Strategy 1: Identification

Show others that you share or at least respect their values, upbringing, experiences, or status.

Use a shared problem to build a sense of identity.

Avoid scapegoating or pandering.

Generative Strategy 2: Framing

Understand how the argument is already being framed.

Frame the argument in positive terms according to your and your audience’s values.

Reframing the argument: avoid adopting negative frames that cast your argument in an unfavorable light.

Use conceptual metaphors to frame or reframe the argument.

Image Credit: Ian Webster

Generative Strategy 3: Narrative

Use funny, tragic, or instructive stories to make your point.

Use anecdotes to describe or clarify important concepts.

Illustrate with hypothetical examples.

Use fables or parables to tie into larger cultural themes.

Generative Strategy 4: Negotiation

Describe the problem as fairly as possible.

Demonstrate that you understand and value the opinions of others.

Identify situations in which others’ positions are valid.

Identify situations in which your position is valid.

Explain how both sides would benefit if elements from both sides were adopted.

Striving for Consensus, Valuing Dissensus

Generative rhetoric teaches students the value of “power with” forms of argumentation.

The aim of generative rhetoric is to use the ongoing conversation to strive for consensus, not necessarily to reach consensus.

Dissensus, or dissent, should be valued and encouraged because it urges people to speak up, be creative, develop awareness, and work things out.

An ongoing conversation is the signal of success. Silence and being silenced signal a failure of generative rhetoric.

Strategies for Persuasive Arguments

Strategy 1: Support claims with reasoning, authority, and emotion.

Strategy 2: Support claims with existing evidence.

Strategy 3: Use commonplaces to structure the argument.

Strategy 4: Avoid fallacious arguments.

Persuasive Strategy 1: logos, ethos, pathos

Reasoning (logos)—using logical statements and examples to reason with the audience

Authority (ethos)—using your reputation or the authority of others to demonstrate that you are knowledgeable, fair, and practical.

Emotion (pathos)—using emotional appeals to influence the audience to sympathize with your cause or reject another point of view.

Persuasive Strategy 2: Gather Existing

Evidence Gather electronic, print, and empirical

evidence.

Gather images and create graphics

Evaluate evidence to determine whether it is Sufficient, Typical, Accurate, and Reliable (STAR method).

Photo Credit: Charlie DeBoyace

Persuasive Strategy 3: Use Commonplaces

Asserting commonplaces—definition, negation, two-sides, comparison and contrast, classification, cause and effect, division, narration, proposal.

Responding commonplaces—better and worse, qualification, counterstatement, refutation, concession, absorption, restatement

Persuasive Strategy 4: Avoid Fallacies

False or weak premises—bandwagon, post hoc reasoning, slippery slope, hasty generalization, weak analogy, false authority.

Irrelevance—ad hominem, red herring, non sequitur, tu quoque.

Ambiguity—circular reasoning, begging the question, straw man, false dichotomy, false choice.

Note: The use of a fallacy doesn’t make an argument wrong. It simply signals a potential weak point in the argument that should be challenged and explored further.

Listening Carefully, Influencing Others

Persuasive rhetoric teaches students how argument is used to exert “power over” others.

The aim of persuasive rhetoric is to influence people to believe something or take a specific kind of action.

Persuasive argument should be flexible and responsive to other viewpoints and alternative ideas.

Success is the ability to “find the available means of persuasion in each particular case.”

Genres of Argument

Genres are meeting places where writers and their audience come together to make meaning together.

Genres of Argument

Description Arguments

Comparison Arguments

Causal Analyses

Visual Essays

Narrative Arguments

Review Arguments

Evaluation Arguments

Commentary Arguments

Refutation Arguments

Proposal ArgumentsResearch Papers and Reports

GenerativePersuasive

Why Use Genres to Teach Argument?

Genres help students learn rhetorical strategies and patterns that will transfer to advanced courses across the curriculum and into their careers.

Genres show students how to argue effectively in both generative and persuasive rhetorical situations.

Genres are easy to learn, immediately applicable, and highly assessable.

Thresholds and Transfer

Teach flexible approaches to rhetorical problem solving

Incorporate strategies that encourage transfer Teaching concepts and heuristics, not rigid rules Teaching students to actively self-monitor Teaching rhetorical awareness Using metaphors and analogies

Elizabeth Wardle, “What Is Transfer”? A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers, ed. Rita Malenczyk (Parlor

Press, 2013)

Thank You and Questions

The teaching of argument needs to adjust to university, workplace, and civic situations that are becoming more networked, dynamic, and fluid.

We believe the genre approach in which students learn to argue generatively and persuasively is the best way to teach argument.

Charles Paine, cpaine@unm.edu

Richard Johnson-Sheehan, rjohnso@purdue.edu