Argumentation Theory, Essay Example

Introduction

In the following, a particular and personal example of an argument in which I engaged will be presented. As will be evident, there was nothing exceptional about the argument; its features, in fact, mirror those conducted within families every day. The goal, however, is to reflect on this instance and view it in light of argumentation theory since studied by myself. The resolution of my example was not satisfactory to me, yet I believe that gaining different perspectives of it in this way may assist me in future arguments. This is not to assert that I wish to “win” arguments, and equip myself to uniformly be victorious on other, argumentative occasions; rather, I am inclined to think that a more expansive approach to the entire subject will allow me to better comprehend the arguments of others, and consequently reduce degrees of opposition. Argument is largely, I now perceive, a means of discovery, and it is this opportunity I wish to explore in the following analysis.

Case and Reflection

The recent argument focused on here developed between myself, a 22 year-old woman, and my brother of 19. I believe the circumstances leading to it are likely very ordinary; he expressed to me a desire to date a close friend of mine, and I emphatically resisted the idea. In terms of an actual process, the argument also began as many do. More exactly, it was not initially adversarial, simply because my brother anticipated no resistance on my part. As I learned, in fact, he had been counting on my facilitating the romantic arrangement. In little time, a discussion escalated into an aggressive argument, with the aggression chiefly on his side. I remained adamant, and even tried to soften the hostile tone the argument was adopting. He, conversely, was more angered by this calm, and seemed to more view it as evidence of a spiteful, and certainly unfounded, opposition on my part. When rational conversation was still in play, the main points of each were disclosed. Essentially, I expressed that his dating of my friend would place me in an awkward position, and that he should both recognize this and regard my feelings; he asserted that I was being self-centered, dismissing his interests, and ultimately attacking him as unfit to date a friend of mine. As will be seen, when the latter point was reached, any chance of constructive argument was forestalled. The resolution came only when, each angered, we withdrew, and the heat of the argument itself effectively weakened my brother’s initial desire. I believe, in fact, that the extreme emotion of the argument made him feel that dating my friend would be impossible, as he felt I would actively prevent it happening.

Some basics of what occurred were certainly known to me, even as the argument raged. As Benoit and Benoit make plain, an argument essentially relies on opposition of wants in some manner (56). This in itself can take a variety of forms, from a disagreement over how to achieve a common goal, to a dispute based on contradictory and personal desires. In my case, the opposing want was a reaction to his introduced desire, which added the component of the unexpected to the argument. More importantly, and common to most arguments, is that the primary features of them are composed of different statements. The typical argument model reflecting a co-orientational approach, to which my own example may certainly fit, consists of: a claim or expressed opinion; evidence, or whatever reinforces the claim; reasoning, which links claim and evidence; and the line of dispute, which divides the known from the unknown, and unaccepted (Hollihan, Baaske 63). Obviously, and in the case of my brother and myself, the line of dispute is the arena in which an argument of this model usually culminates. It depends on the contrasts of the other elements, but it is the verbal forum in which they are exchanged, as well as the basic reason behind the argument. In our case, there was an intense volley of reason; my brother’s claim that he should date my friend was supported only by the evidence that it would suit his desires, as my claim that he should not relied on the evidence of an understanding of my feelings, to which my brother was unable or unwilling to concede. Had I perceived this more fully at the time, I believe I would have tried to actually discuss this very stalemate. In other words, I would have sought to step outside of the argument and direct my brother’s attention to how unproductively we were carrying it on.

It did not escape me at the time, although I did not give it sufficient consideration, that the essential point of dispute between myself and my brother was over contrasting values, and not a proposition over fact. The value component lies in either side viewing the central issue, or opposing claims, in favorable or unfavorable lights (Infante 33). He perceived his dating Mary as a desirable, or unobjectionable thing, and I vehemently felt otherwise; our values, then, clashed. At the same time, I am now aware that, in a very real sense, this aspect of values went very much to a proposition of policy. The words seems grandiose under the circumstances, yet that is what was being argued, in terms of a family policy regarding his freedom to date friends of mine. This was not directly addressed in the argument, although both my brother and I quickly turned the subject of my friend to my “friends,” generalizing the issue.

While I appreciate the reasoning of this co-orientational model, I feel that the Toulmin better encompasses the nature of the argument in question, as well as those most commonly occurring. More exactly, it is the simplicity of the elementary Toulmin model I support, because the inherent complexity of all personal arguments is such that they are best served by a basic framework, one that that accommodate the many features of them. In Toulmin, argument is actually not presented as a dual process, for the logic he uses defines argument as exactly that: one side of an issue. The data is the information or evidence for the claim, which is then tied to the warrant, otherwise known as the “reasoning” in the co-orientational approach (Kneupper 238). What prompts me to be attracted to this basic, logical sequence is that it comprehends the true nature of argument as simultaneously one-sided and reliant on opposition. An argument may not essentially exist as such without refutation or dispute, for the absence renders it a proposal. My brother put forth a proposal he deemed completely reasonable, and argument interaction occurred from my contrary response. At the same time, it is important to recognize the elementary components, because an understanding of them applied to one side of a dispute facilitates a better comprehension of the other. A better understanding of this basic structure, I think, would have enabled me to see the argument differently at the time. To be more precise, I would have seen the process rather than the substance, and this would likely have lessened the personal, defensive posture I took, as well as that of my brothers. Plainly, one person cannot maintain an unproductive and highly aggressive argument alone. Had I more acknowledged this, I may have been less inclined to adopt an equally aggressive and defensive posture, if only because would have realized how unavailing it must be. I was, even in the heat of our major argument, aware that the rising degree of aggression was in no way actually helping to move the argument forward. This is a common issue, and seemingly one working against the interests of all concerned parties; when anything perceived as an attack on a self-concept enters into the argument, it becomes misdirected (Infante 17). I did not see this, however. Instead, I fully entered in a “tug of war,” and helped to prevent the argument taking on any constructive properties.

I further believe that the single, most decisive component of this argument was my brother’s reaction. This by no means translates to my assigning him the blame or responsibility for the disagreeable, if not painful, quality of it; instead, I point to this as what I now perceive to be an extremely typical cause of argument, actual subject matters aside. It is reported that a sense of being insulted or unjustly accused of something frequently gives rise to argument (Benoit, Benoit 61). In my case, and importantly, such insult may not need to be voiced. It may even not be intended any way. From my unwillingness to see him date my friend, he inferred that I had little or no regard for him. This was not in any way my meaning, nor was it a feeling I sought to suppress. It was his interpretation of my evidence, and the hurtful quality of it brought out in him distinct hostility. This leads me to conclude that the line between insult and accusation is very fine, as the latter is typically perceived as the former. What was essential in our argument, then, and what I permitted to overshadow it, was this obstacle of mistaken perception. Not only was my objection to his dating my friend taken as an insult by my brother, he was equally angered the discovery that I would not help him in this ambition, which reinforced his sense of being deemed unfit by me. I reacted to what was voiced in this regard in a manner equally aggressive, as I then felt unjustly accused of a motive or belief I did not possess. His feeling unworthy was to me absurd, so I reacted to the lack of basis to the feeling, rather than to the far more important factor of its fueling his argument. In reflecting in this way, and ultimately, I perceive that I was as responsible as my brother was for an argument accomplishing nothing except generating mutual mistrust and hostility.

Conclusion

Arguments, I believe, may take on as many properties and characteristics as exist within those conducting them. In fact, as arguments evolve exponentially through how these facets interact, the possibilities of variations are even greater. Nonetheless, it seems that when basic components common to virtually all argument are examined, there are essential elements common to all. This, I realize, is certainly the case with my argument with my brother. He presented a claim, I countered with another claim, and the evidence of each of us, mutually unaccepted, denied any chance of achieving compromise or solution. From this I have learned that a key to argument lies in seeing, not the precise component or issue at hand, but to what category it fits. Only then can a clear idea of its place, or lack thereof, in the argument be known, and pointless exercises in aggression be avoided. If argument is not a science, it is definitely something of a formula, and I believe that future arguments I have will be conducted with this valuable frame of reference in mind.

Works Cited

Benoit, Pamela J., & Benoit, William L. “To Argue or Not to Argue.” Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede. Eds. Trapp, Robert, & Schuetz, Janice. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 2006. 55-72. Print.

Hollihan, Thomas A., & Baaske, Kevin T. Arguments and Arguing: The Products and Process of Human Decision Making, 2^nd Ed. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 2005. Print.

Infante, Dominic A. Arguing Constructively. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 1988. Print.

Kneupper, Charles W. “Teaching Argument: An Introduction to the Toulmin Model.” College Composition and Communication 29. 3 (Oct., 1978): 237-241. Print.