INVESTIGATING ARGUMENT AS PRODUCT IN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36317/kja/2024/v1.i62.17380Keywords:
argument as product, claim, debate, evidence, reasoning strategiesAbstract
Constructing a logical argument is the key to success in verbal communication. Yet, such an academic topic has not been satisfactorily dealt with in details. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to investigate the most prominent components utilized in the determination of an argument as product. This paper shows how the components of an argument can be critically manipulated to convey pragmatic messages. In this study, an extract of three arguments taken form the 2020 American presidential debates are allotted to be investigated in terms of the types of claims, of evidence and of reasoning strategies which are all put together logically to construct a persuasive argument as apparently intended by the debater. It has been shown that argument as product is tied to certain types of components that are advanced through particular strategies of reasoning. Furthermore, all of the arguments under study are put forward to satisfy pragmatic meanings.
Downloads
References
Breitholtz, E. (2021). Enthymemes and Topoi in Dialogue: The Use of Common Sense Reasoning in Conversation. BRILL. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004436794
Broda-Bahm, K., Kempf, D., & Driscoll, W. (2004). Argument and Audience Presenting Debates in Public Settings. International Debate Education Association.
Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to Logic: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Education Limited : [distributor] Pearson Education Ltd : [distributor] United Book Distributors : [distributor] Pearson Holdings South Africa (PHSA).
Donald Trump & Joe Biden Final Presidential Debate Transcript 2020. (n.d.). Rev. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-joe-biden-final-presidential-debate-transcript-2020
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389
Fogelin, R. (2005). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 25(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1040
Freeley, A. J., & Steinberg, D. L. (2009). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making (12th ed). Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Freeman, J. B. (2011). Argument Structure: (Vol. 18). Springer Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0357-5
Govier, T. (n.d.). Critical thinking as argument analysis? 12.
Johnson, R. H. (2012). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument (0 ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606174
Krawczyk, D. C. (2018). Deduction and Induction. In Reasoning (pp. 199–225). Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809285-9.00009-0
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In J. Vonk & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1045-1
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed). Macmillan ; Collier Macmillan Publishers.
Walton, D. (2001). Enthymemes, Common Knowledge, and Plausible Inference. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 34(2), 93–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2001.0010
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2024 حسن وريوش مرعي، عبد الحسين كاظم ريشان
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
