Interpersonal arguments carry the potential for defensiveness and hostility, making them enormously distressing and difficult to understand. An Anatomy of Everyday Arguments examines the structure and dynamics of conflict to find new ways forward. Marnie Jull analyzes four personal stories through the lens of the Insight approach, an innovative way to decipher and reshape the direction of everyday conflicts that draws from the theories of Bernard Lonergan. Jull dissects arguments that range from a quarrel about chores to a high-stakes organizational impasse, exploring the internal process of decision-making that shapes conflict behaviour within complex social contexts. Without dismissing the importance of responsible conflict, the Insight approach encourages people in the heat of an argument to engage less rashly with threat. Jull’s entertaining storytelling and meticulous analysis integrate findings from sociology, conflict resolution, interpersonal communication, psychology, facilitation, ethnography, anthropology, and qualitative research methodology. At a time of increasingly polarized global debate, the Insight approach lays the groundwork for new possibilities to emerge. An innovative text, An Anatomy of Everyday Arguments brings new theoretical work on conflict and change to life and demonstrates its practical applications.
Everyday Arguments combines a practical, student-oriented argument rhetoric with an anthology of illustrative readings drawn from arguments of everyday life. The rhetoric portion of the text contains a four-part taxonomy and guides students through the process of generating, drafting, composing, and revising written arguments. The anthology of readings is closely tied to the principles and practices introduced in the rhetoric section. Throughout the text, the author emphasizes that much can be learned about written argument and its practice from the texts we encounter on a daily basis. Writing-intensive exercises in each chapter encourage students to practice new skills as they learn them, while refreshing their knowledge of previously mastered skills. These exercises emphasize the value of collaboration, revision, and responsible research. Helpful student samples encourage students in their own writing.
A noted attorney gives detailed instructions on winning arguments, emphasizing such points as learning to speak with the body, avoiding being blinding by brilliance, and recognizing the power of words as a weapon.
"Good coverage of concepts with understandable explanations of theory. Very user friendly with exercises to use in and out of class. Connects well with other communication classes through the application of other communication concepts to argumentation." —Christopher Leland, Azusa Pacific University Argumentation in Everyday Life provides students with the tools they need to argue effectively in the classroom and beyond. Jeffrey P. Mehltretter Drury offers rich coverage of theory while balancing everyday applicability, allowing students to use their skills soundly. Drury introduces the fundamentals of constructing and refuting arguments using the Toulmin model and ARG conditions (Acceptability, Relevance, and Grounds). Numerous real-world examples are connected to the theories of rhetoric and argumentation discussed—enabling students to practice and apply the content in personal, civic, and professional contexts, as well as traditional academic debates. Encouraging self-reflection, this book empowers students to find their voice and create positive change through argumentation in everyday life. Unique resources to help students navigate this complex terrain of argumentation: "The Debate Situation" offers students a birds-eye view of any given debate (or exchange of arguments between two or more people) organized around three necessary components: arguments, issues, and the proposition. The visual model of the debate situation illustrates how these features work together in guiding a debate and it lays the groundwork for understanding and generating arguments. Easy to Use Standards for Evaluating Arguments combine a prominent argument model (named after logician Stephen Toulmin) with a standards-based approach (the ARG conditions) to test of quality of an argument. The ARG conditions are three questions an advocate should ask of an argument in determining whether or not it is rationally persuasive. These questions are best served by research but don’t necessary require it, and thus they provide a useful posture for critically assessing the arguments you encounter. Multiple "Everyday Life" examples with an emphasis on context help students to connect the lessons more fully to their everyday life and encourages them to grapple explicitly with dilemmas arising in different contexts. "Find Your Voice Prompts" focus on choice & empowerment to offer strategies for students to choose which arguments to address and how to address them—empowering students to use argumentation to find their voice. "Build Your Skill Prompts" use objective applications to test how well students have learned the information. They offer a chance to apply the material to additional examples that students can check against the answers in Appendix II. Two application exercises at the end of each chapter encourage students to think critically about the content, discuss their thoughts with their peers, and apply the material to everyday situations.
The argument builder will train you to build compelling and persuasive arguments, through a blend of logic and rhetoric. You will first study the logical structure of good, clear arguments. Then, you will study how to use the various elements of argumentation, such as examples, analogy, comparison, testimony, and statistics, combining them to construct your own sound and effective arguments. You will also learn about the fallacies often committed when using these elements and how to avoid them in your own arguments.
A vital contribution to legal theory and media and civic discourse In the 1860s, northern newspapers attacked Abraham Lincoln's policies by attacking his character, using the terms "drunk," "baboon," "too slow," "foolish," and "dishonest." Steadily on the increase in political argumentation since then, the argumentum ad hominem, or personal attack argument, has now been carefully refined as an instrument of "oppo tactics" and "going negative" by the public relations experts who craft political campaigns at the national level. In this definitive treatment of one of the most important concepts in argumentation theory and informal logic, Douglas Walton presents a normative framework for identifying and evaluating ad hominem or personal attack arguments. Personal attack arguments have often proved to be so effective, in election campaigns, for example, that even while condemning them, politicians have not stopped using them. In the media, in the courtroom, and in everyday confrontation, ad hominem arguments are easy to put forward as accusations, are difficult to refute, and often have an extremely powerful effect on persuading an audience. Walton gives a clear method for analyzing and evaluating cases of ad hominem arguments found in everyday argumentation. His analysis classifies the ad hominem argument into five clearly defined subtypes—abusive (direct), circumstantial, bias, "poisoning the well," and tu quoque ("you're just as bad") arguments—and gives methods for evaluating each type. Each subtype is given a well-defined form as a recognizable type of argument. The numerous case studies show in concrete terms many practical aspects of how to use textual evidence to identify and analyze fallacies and to evaluate argumentation as fallacious or not in particular cases.
Have you ever walked away from an argument and suddenly thought of all the brilliant things you wish you'd said? Do you avoid certain family members and colleagues because of bitter, festering tension that you can't figure out how to address? Now, finally, there's a solution: a new framework that frees you from the trap of unproductive conflict and pointless arguing forever. If the threat of raised voices, emotional outbursts, and public discord makes you want to hide under the conference room table, you're not alone. Conflict, or the fear of it, can be exhausting. But as this powerful book argues, conflict doesn't have to be unpleasant. In fact, properly channeled, conflict can be the most valuable tool we have at our disposal for deepening relationships, solving problems, and coming up with new ideas. As the mastermind behind some of the highest-performing teams at Amazon, Twitter, and Slack, Buster Benson spent decades facilitating hard conversations in stressful environments. In this book, Buster reveals the psychological underpinnings of awkward, unproductive conflict and the critical habits anyone can learn to avoid it. Armed with a deeper understanding of how arguments, you'll be able to: Remain confident when you're put on the spot Diffuse tense moments with a few strategic questions Facilitate creative solutions even when your team has radically different perspectives Why Are We Yelling will shatter your assumptions about what makes arguments productive. You'll find yourself having fewer repetitive, predictable fights once you're empowered to identify your biases, listen with an open mind, and communicate well.
This book introduces readers to the many arguments and controversies concerning abortion. While it argues for ethical and legal positions on the issues, it focuses on how to think about the issues, not just what to think about them. It is an ideal resource to improve your understanding of what people think, why they think that and whether their (and your) arguments are good or bad, and why. It's ideal for classroom use, discussion groups, organizational learning, and personal reading. From the Preface To many people, abortion is an issue for which discussions and debates are frustrating and fruitless: it seems like no progress will ever be made towards any understanding, much less resolution or even compromise. Judgments like these, however, are premature because some basic techniques from critical thinking, such as carefully defining words and testing definitions, stating the full structure of arguments so each step of the reasoning can be examined, and comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different explanations can help us make progress towards these goals. When emotions run high, we sometimes need to step back and use a passion for calm, cool, critical thinking. This helps us better understand the positions and arguments of people who see things differently from us, as well as our own positions and arguments. And we can use critical thinking skills help to try to figure out which positions are best, in terms of being supported by good arguments: after all, we might have much to learn from other people, sometimes that our own views should change, for the better. Here we use basic critical thinking skills to argue that abortion is typically not morally wrong. We begin with less morally-controversial claims: adults, children and babies are wrong to kill and wrong to kill, fundamentally, because they, we, are conscious, aware and have feelings. We argue that since early fetuses entirely lack these characteristics, they are not inherently wrong to kill and so most abortions are not morally wrong, since most abortions are done early in pregnancy, before consciousness and feeling develop in the fetus. Furthermore, since the right to life is not the right to someone else’s body, fetuses might not have the right to the pregnant woman’s body—which she has the right to—and so she has the right to not allow the fetus use of her body. This further justifies abortion, at least until technology allows for the removal of fetuses to other wombs. Since morally permissible actions should be legal, abortions should be legal: it is an injustice to criminalize actions that are not wrong. In the course of arguing for these claims, we: 1. discuss how to best define abortion; 2. dismiss many common “question-begging” arguments that merely assume their conclusions, instead of giving genuine reasons for them; 3. refute some often-heard “everyday arguments” about abortion, on all sides; 4. explain why the most influential philosophical arguments against abortion are unsuccessful; 5. provide some positive arguments that at least early abortions are not wrong; 6. briefly discuss the ethics and legality of later abortions, and more. This essay is not a “how to win an argument” piece or a tract or any kind of apologetics. It is not designed to help anyone “win” debates: everybody “wins” on this issue when we calmly and respectfully engage arguments with care, charity, honesty and humility. This book is merely a reasoned, systematic introduction to the issues that we hope models these skills and virtues. Its discussion should not be taken as absolute “proof” of anything: much more needs to be understood and carefully discussed—always.
The Skills of Argument presents a comprehensive empirical study of informal reasoning as argument, involving subjects across the life span. Subjects ranging in age from adolescence to late adulthood were asked to describe their views on social problems that people have occasion to think and talk about in everyday life, such as crime and unemployment. In addition to providing supporting evidence for their theories, subjects were asked to contemplate alternative theories and counterarguments and to evaluate new evidence on the topics. This is the first major study of informal reasoning across the life span. Highlighting the importance of argumentive reasoning in everyday thought, the book offers a theoretical framework for conceptualizing and studying thinking as argument. The findings address issues of major importance to cognitive and developmental psychologists, as well as educators concerned with improving the quality of people's thinking. The work is also relevant to philosophers, political scientists, and linguists interested in informal reasoning and argumentive discourse.
