Page 157 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 157
political discourse and argumentation profiles 157
E. Concept testing. What argumentation theorists themselves should
find valuable about this kind of study is that it allows them to test their
concepts. This is especially so for the list of informal-logic argument
schemes and the dialectical roles. Whereas text books look for argu-
ments they can use to illustrate schemes, we look for a list of schemes
that will be adequate to the identification and classification of all the
arguments in a given field of discourse. What is optimal here? We need
a balance between what is useful and manageable. This means that the
list of argument kinds (schemes) should be comprehensive enough to
allow classification of all the arguments found in the discourse, but
it should not be so fine-grained that it will introduce minute distinc-
tions that have little or no consequence for the making of argumenta-
tion profiles.
F. Student participation. Student participation in gathering, classi-
fying and analysing the arguments used in the creation of the profiles is
important for at least two reasons. The one has to do with the user-effi-
ciency of the concepts and methods of informal logic. If these cannot be
used by university students at the upper undergraduate level, or the be-
ginning graduate level, then we have lost sight of an important goal of
informal logic viz., to provide tools of analysis and evaluation useful to
the public in general. In gathering the information needed for making
the profiles, we can observe how well our students do with the materials
we provide for them to work with, and make adjustments as needed The
other reason to have student involvement in the making of the profiles
is to stimulate interest in election campaigns among young people. Only
38 per cent of the 18–24 age group voted in the 2011 federal election in
Canada. (Edmonton Journal, 2012)
This completes my case for seeking the involvement of fellow argu-
mentation workers in the study of political campaigns, and the value of
making argumentation profiles.
References
Aristotle. Rhetoric. (Many editions).
Benoit, W. L. (1999). Acclaiming, Attacking and Defending in Presi-
dential Nomination Accepting addresses, 1960–1996. Quarterly
Journal of Speech 85, 247–267.
Calgary Herald (2012). Drunk Driving Laws Divisive; Opposition
Strongest in Calgary.” March 30, 2012.
E. Concept testing. What argumentation theorists themselves should
find valuable about this kind of study is that it allows them to test their
concepts. This is especially so for the list of informal-logic argument
schemes and the dialectical roles. Whereas text books look for argu-
ments they can use to illustrate schemes, we look for a list of schemes
that will be adequate to the identification and classification of all the
arguments in a given field of discourse. What is optimal here? We need
a balance between what is useful and manageable. This means that the
list of argument kinds (schemes) should be comprehensive enough to
allow classification of all the arguments found in the discourse, but
it should not be so fine-grained that it will introduce minute distinc-
tions that have little or no consequence for the making of argumenta-
tion profiles.
F. Student participation. Student participation in gathering, classi-
fying and analysing the arguments used in the creation of the profiles is
important for at least two reasons. The one has to do with the user-effi-
ciency of the concepts and methods of informal logic. If these cannot be
used by university students at the upper undergraduate level, or the be-
ginning graduate level, then we have lost sight of an important goal of
informal logic viz., to provide tools of analysis and evaluation useful to
the public in general. In gathering the information needed for making
the profiles, we can observe how well our students do with the materials
we provide for them to work with, and make adjustments as needed The
other reason to have student involvement in the making of the profiles
is to stimulate interest in election campaigns among young people. Only
38 per cent of the 18–24 age group voted in the 2011 federal election in
Canada. (Edmonton Journal, 2012)
This completes my case for seeking the involvement of fellow argu-
mentation workers in the study of political campaigns, and the value of
making argumentation profiles.
References
Aristotle. Rhetoric. (Many editions).
Benoit, W. L. (1999). Acclaiming, Attacking and Defending in Presi-
dential Nomination Accepting addresses, 1960–1996. Quarterly
Journal of Speech 85, 247–267.
Calgary Herald (2012). Drunk Driving Laws Divisive; Opposition
Strongest in Calgary.” March 30, 2012.
