To clarify this discussion, let’s list the four main features that reflect how argumentation will be defined in this textbook:

Persuasion & Dialogue

Argumentation consists of a rich interplay between persuasion and dialogue. On the one hand, your purpose is to shape the thinking of your readers, to change their minds, and to move them into action. The “authors” of the “Policy & Change” yard sign, for example, are hoping that their audiences will consider gun reform legislation. On the other hand, you should use argumentation as a way to learn more about your issue, your message, the writing strategies available to you, and your audience’s needs and values. In short, instead of a “fight” or a pro/con debate, you are encouraged to regard argumentation as a dialogue with your readers and as a process of truth seeking. You should work toward a fuller understanding of the issues you are addressing and be willing to change your mind about them and consider alternative claims and reasons.

Explicit Claims and Reasons

As you work on arguments in this class, you will offer explicit claims and reasons. Unlike the authors of the three arguments that we discussed above, you will be asked to highlight your main claim for your readers—this is the position that you are supporting about the issue. You will then support this main claim with reasons–statements that support and justify (explain “why?”) your position. Instead of “Refugees Welcome,” therefore, your argument would more clearly specify your claim and reasons:

Claim: We should welcome all refugees to Italy.

Reason #1: Because they are human beings deserving of a better life.

Reason #2: Because we need to create a world that is more sustainable and equitable for all.

Reason #3: Because Europe has the wealth and capacity to care for all refugees.

When you make your argument explicit, you are trying to make it as easy as possible for your readers to understand your position and the reasons why you have taken that position. Here are some more examples of explicit arguments:

• K-State Libraries should not feature a café in its first-floor space because it makes the library appear too much like a place for shopping and entertainment.
• The online class I took last semester was a disaster because the instructor stopped communicating with everyone halfway through the semester.

In both of these examples, the writers have clearly indicating what they were arguing, a proposal not to do something in the first case or a negative evaluation in the second; the writers have then supported and justified their positions with an obvious reason.

Public Audiences

Your arguments should have a “public” audience—that is, there needs to be a reasonably large public community or communities that are invested in the issue and are interested in exploring it. The issue should not require a great deal of technical knowledge or expertise for members of these public communities to participate in it. Similarly, the issue should not be of interest only to one small community that is not connected to the larger interests of public life.

Issues surrounding parenting are a good example of public arguments. Not only do many people become parents, and thus find themselves having to confront these issues, but all people as children will be affected by these arguments. Here are several parenting issues that are commonplace: parenting styles, breastfeeding, types of punishment, use of television and digital devices, and homeschooling. Similarly, the issues related to vaccinations and “anti-vaxxer” parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated are now frequent arguments with many consequences for healthcare and schooling.

Unfortunately, there are some audiences for which it is impossible to generate a persuasive, successful, and ethical argument. These are audiences who may resist your attempts at creating a dialogue and searching for the truth and good solutions. Here are three audiences to avoid:

• Polarized audiences: When writers attempt to appeal to audiences who may be resistant or openly hostile, they may encounter rhetorical situations in which effective argumentation becomes impossible. In these cases, the polarized audiences reject the assumptions and values held by those with alternative perspectives and, in effect, refuse to listen to reasoned arguments. Issues related to abortion, gun rights, and conspiracy theories may include highly polarized audiences.
• Audiences who do not want to change: If your readers refuse to consider the possibility of changing their minds or agreeing to compromise, then the conditions of successful argumentation are no longer possible. Similarly, as the writer and arguer, you must also open yourself up to the possibility of changing your mind about the issue.
• Audiences who hold no basis of agreement with the writer. If the writer and their audiences refuse to grant their reasons and evidence any validity, then there is also no basis for successful argumentation. For example, writers who craft arguments based upon conspiracy theories or readers who disregard all evidence as “fake news” will not be able to participate in argumentation in the ways in which it has been defined here.

Controversial Issue

The issue you choose to explore should be “controversial,” which, in this case, means a topic that includes at least two perspectives or two ways of thinking about it. In other words, you need to conceive of at least two groups of readers who would hold alternative views about the issue and position themselves differently.

When we discuss controversial issues, it is important to distinguish between issues – topics on which at least two groups of people disagree or have different perspectives – and informational questions, those research questions and answers that most (reasonable) people will agree with. In other words, you won’t be arguing about informational questions, such as the following:

• When has the warmest temperature been recorded in Antarctica?
• What percentage of high-school students in the United States has reported eating disorders?
• According to voter data in 2020, how many voters identify themselves as “white nationalists”?
• What are the differences in standardized language test scores between different demographic groups?

Instead, as you approach arguments, you’ll be thinking in terms of issues:

• Why has the U.S. government been slower than Scandinavian countries in recognizing the relationship of climate change and growing temperatures in Antarctica?
• What role does the fashion media have to play in eating disorders among adolescent women in the United States?
• Why do so many young white men now call themselves “white nationalists”?

How can we help support the lower test scores of young males when it comes to language development?

The message of the bumper sticker is intriguingly simple. It has two meanings: the “writer” of the bumper sticker claims that they literally stand up for the patriotic event of the national anthem; they also claim that they are supporters of the values that they see clustered around the national anthem. We might almost want to consider this an informative statement: the writer is simply informing their audience about something they do (stand up) and believe in (a particular form of patriotism). Yet, given the events of 2016, in which Colin Kaepernick and other NFL football players protested police violence against African Americans by kneeling during the national anthem at the beginning of NFL games, this claim certainly becomes an argumentative one. The writer is declaring a position, aligning themselves with others who have the same values and distancing from others who reject this claim.

The audience? It is tempting to think of the audience as all possible readers who may see this bumper sticker, yet it’s often more useful, especially in this age of viral online arguments, to consider the intended rhetorical audiences: the readers who were imagined when the bumper sticker was created and, of course, when the bumper sticker was stuck to the back of the car. The question you have to ask yourself is whether the writer conceived of their audience as one of supporters (of people who would affirm the message) or, quite possibly, if the writer has in mind a resistant audience—they are trying to confront the views of those who would sneer at this patriotic statement. Of course, the writer may be holding both of these audiences in mind at the same time.

Again, it is important to recognize the issues surrounding the national anthem, which cluster around such contrasting key values as patriotism, respect, the sacrifices of members of the military, U.S. militarism, police violence, and diversity. Since 2016, the national anthem has become saturated with new meanings, arguments, and rhetorical possibilities.

Unpacking Rhetoric

The issues and approaches we’ve been detailing so far fall within the realm of rhetoric. In fact, ENGL 200 is, at heart, a class in rhetoric; in other words, it is a class devoted to having you consider the ways in which you—and others—are purposefully using language and other symbols to influence readers, viewers, and listeners. Researchers in rhetoric study a wide variety of things: from tattoos to speeches, building design to Reddit threads, and clothing to sidewalk chalk. For example, some rhetorical scholars study how museums and memorials affect participants by analyzing architectural forms, messages, digital instillations, display objects and artifacts, and images. Researchers in technical communication and rhetoric may examine how medical instructions and packaging downplay the risks for consumers. Likewise, other scholars in the field may examine how architecture students learn to enact the values of architecture through design proposal assignments.

Rhetoric in Action: Word Choice and Filtering/Emphasis

One important dimension of rhetoric is the way that people use language to shape the world for themselves and for others. Read this following scenario:

A high-school teacher receives an angry email from a parent who accuses the teacher of “confronting” her son in the hallway after class and “scolding” him on the quality of his recent homework assignment.

Confronted? Scolded? Although the teacher recalls briefly meeting with the student after class and suggesting that the student revise his homework to enhance his semester grade, she is worried about how her interaction has been represented. It definitely does not fit into the model of teaching and teacher-student interactions that she has tried to foster throughout the semester.

What is going on here? Well, rhetoric is going on. The mother—and student (after all, we need to know more about how and why the student depicted this event to his mother)—held a different model or schema in their heads about how teachers and students typically interact with each other; in this case, they held an adversarial model, in which teachers “confront” students (not “approached” or “engaged in a brief conversation with,” etc.) and “scold” students (not “remind” or “suggest” or “encourage”). In this case, according to the mother’s email, the teacher has taken over the role of the authoritarian parent. In her email, the mother has chosen particular words, perhaps unconsciously, in order to emphasize certain aspects of the teacher- student interaction and to filter or shape the reality of what happened for the teacher and, presumably, others.

Ethos

 The “ethos” of the argument points to the writer, speaker, rhetor, or designer. When it comes to a successful ethos-based argument, the audience is sympathetic towards it because they find the writer to be credible, likeable, friendly, smart, impressive, or any other of a long list of qualities.

Writers can present their ethos by having credentials that audiences will respect. If the writer is arguing about a medical issue, for example, readers may respond well if the writer has identified themselves as a medical doctor. When trying to figure out whether to vote for an increase in the local education budget, some voters might appreciate hearing from teachers as opposed to politicians.

Writers can enhance their ethos by appearing to be open-minded, well-organized, and knowledgeable. In fact, writing teachers may be judging their own students’ ethos or credibility when they come across typos, formatting problems, citation glitches, faulty paraphrasing, and sloppy citation or references sections. These problems will certainly diminish the ethos of the student writer. Other writers may choose to enhance their ethos by demonstrating their knowledge of the issue and showing that they understand the different sides of the argument. They will need to do this by reading and listening, conducting research, and talking with peers and experts, among other possibilities.

Writers, through their use of language, can also shape the ways in which their readers accept them as credible, trustworthy, and even likeable people. Writers may use

• Inclusive pronouns (e.g., “we”) or other linguistic devices, to make it seem like the writer is including the reader in their argument
• Create a “bridge” between themselves and their readers; for example, if a university athletic director was arguing to cut a sports program, she might create more sympathy for her position by talking about her experiences as a student athlete
• Use specifics and concrete details to show that they have “done their homework”
• Show that they are willing to compromise and listen

Interestingly enough, in contemporary politics across the globe, ethos has become regarded as the most important rhetorical appeal. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and many other countries, citizens are voting for candidates who they like, admire, and respect—yet with very little thought about what these candidates are actually saying or doing.

Logos

 Logos points to the soundness of the rhetorical message: What is the core argument that the writer is offering? What is the main claim? What are the ways that they support and justify the main claim with reasons? What are the ways in which the reasons logically relate to the claim? What assumptions, values, and beliefs does the audience have to hold in order to accept the core argument?

In short, logos is the reasonableness of the argument. Will it make sense to the readers? Will they accept it? Will they be able to follow it? Will they grant it as acceptable, appropriate, and logical?

Evidence also makes up a component of logos. To what extent does the writer support their main points or reasons? How satisfying will the readers find this evidence and the ways in which it is used?

Though we will discuss the different components of logos in more detail below, take a quick look at two examples of a core argument. Many readers will accept the logos of the first example.

However, most readers will not accept the logos of the second example.

Example #1: “We should buy a Subaru Outback because it has high safety ratings.” Claim: We should buy a Subaru Outback.

Reason: Because it has high safety ratings. Assumption: Safety is an important concern.

Example #2: “He’s Brazilian; of course, he’s going to be good at soccer.” Claim: He is going to be good at soccer.

Reason: Because he is Brazilian.

Assumption: All Brazilians are good soccer players.

Kairos

Though not a part of the traditional rhetorical appeals, kairos refers to the timeliness of the argument. In other words, to what extent will readers consider the argument or issue to be timely and relevant to them?

There are many examples of people with important claims to make who were not listened to because the “advocacy window” (see also the “Overton window”) or the time was not the appropriate one. For example, many environmentalists have been trying to get politicians and the mass public galvanized around issues of plastics and carbon usage since the 1970s. Yet, they found themselves with few audiences who cared because the effects of climate change were not quite yet part of the everyday experiences of people

Even though these rhetorical appeals appear in separate columns in Figure 10, please be aware that in practice they can blend together; moreover, when analyzing a specific feature of an argument, you might be able to explain it by referring to more than one of the appeals. For example, consider the use of statistics. During the Covid-19 outbreak, Anthony Fauci, one of the most visible of the scientific advisors in the Trump administration, used the statistic of 240,000 potential coronavirus deaths to galvanize the political action needed to enforce social distancing and isolation policies. As ethos, the use of this statistic shows that Fauci was aware of the scientific data and the modeling that had been conducted; as logos, Fauci used this statistic as evidence to support his claim (social distancing and isolation policies are necessary) and his reason (because they will save lives); finally, as pathos, this frightening statistic affected audiences emotionally; they were persuaded out of fear.

Admittedly, the examples above have been chosen because they appear so ludicrous, yet we cannot forget that even these beliefs have real effects. In December 2016, a man opened fire at a pizzeria in Washington D.C., one of the supposed centers of the sex-trafficking ring.^[7] 5G towers have been burnt down in Great Britain by “truth seeking” activists. Closer to home, in Manhattan, Kansas, drivers with painted QAnon symbols on their vehicles challenged bystanders after the 2020 presidential election.^[8] Another example: traumatized parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have been accused of faking the massacre as a way to sway public opinion against gun rights.^[9]

Conspiracy theory thinking has spread as a way to shape the reality – and to resist government policies and official explanations – of traditional political processes such as elections, well- established medical procedures, and public policies, including that of mandating masks during the coronavirus epidemic. Additionally, we should be troubled by the similarities that many conspiracy theories, in particular QAnon, have with anti-Semitic discourse.1^[10]

A conspiracy theory argument consists of the same elements as the public arguments that we will be exploring in ENGL 200. It consists of ethos– in this case, appeals to an “insider” who has special knowledge (e.g., QAnon) or who may possess academic credentials (e.g., Vanessa Beeley^[11]). It is also framed within an audience-focused pathos, using such emotions as fear and disgust, and, more importantly, providing readers and listeners with the satisfying feeling that they are in the presence of the truth and can empower themselves by having the meaning of the world unlocked for them. Finally, conspiracy theory thinking is a form of logos, yet an internal, pseudo-sort of logos: conspiracy theorists do make claims and use evidence to support their reasons, yet they cannot defend their evidence, find credible and external sources of information, objectively examine their own views, and consider other possibilities or alternatives. In fact, it becomes impossible to argue with conspiracy theory thinking. Your criticisms, challenges, and appeals to more credible sources are immediately used to strengthen their claims. British writer James Meek, when he attempted to discuss his concerns with a conspiracy theorist, made this discovery: “I was reminded of one of the reasons it’s so difficult to argue with conspiracy theorists: you’re faced with a choice between challenging limitless errors one by one, or denouncing an entire edifice of belief, which usually means calling the conspiracy theorist mad [i.e., insane] or stupid, at which point conspiracy theory has won” (21).^[12]

How can you help to challenge the growing power of conspiracy theory thinking? As a student of argumentation and persuasion, keep on honing your ability to distinguish between fact and fiction and to make judgements about the credibility of evidence; seek out opportunities to share ideas with those who may disagree with you – but who will do so reasonably, productively, and civilly; recognize that the world is far more complicated than these simple conspiracy theories may lead you believe; understand that you nor anyone else holds 100% of the truth – yet at the same time that you can make judgements without falling into the trap of denying everything and claiming everything is “fake news”; support legislation to regulate social media; and, among other strategies, pay attention to the labels, symbols, rhetorical appeals, and other components of arguments that you encounter.

More on Logos: Introduction to the Toulmin Model

ENGL 200 uses the Toulmin Model, named after the British philosopher, Stephen Toulmin, who was interested in showing how logic could become a powerful way for people to unpack issues, argue, and make decisions. The Toulmin Model was popularized in one of the most successful writing textbooks, Writing Arguments.

The Toulmin Model consists of these following terms, some of which we’ve been using already:

Claim

Your main thesis or point; the message you are focusing on.

• E-cigarettes should be banned immediately!
• The iPhone 11 is the best cell phone ever.

Reason

A statement or point that supports, backs up, and justifies your claim.

• Because they have caused the deaths of many adolescents.
• Because it includes the most powerful camera with the fastest processing speeds.

Assumptions

These are the beliefs, values, or philosophical positions that logically connect the claim and the reason; although the speaker/writer may not explicitly state the assumption, the readers need to accept this assumption in order for the claim and reason to make sense and sound reasonable.

• Products that cause the deaths of adolescents should be banned.
• The most important criteria of a cell phone are the camera and processing speed.

When we consider an argument to be sound and valid, it is because we share the same assumptions as the person who is making the argument. In the two examples above, many readers would accept the first claim and reason (though, consumers and producers of e- cigarettes may dispute how dangerous these products are). Many readers, when looking at the second example, would dispute this claim and reason; instead, they would assume that other criteria are more important, such as digital security, size, and cost.

Evidence

Evidence includes all of the types of research sources that you are familiar with: academic articles, statistical reports, interview data, testimonies by trustworthy people, stories and anecdotes, and test data, among many other possibilities.

In the Toulmin Model, we can support and develop the claim and reason with evidence, which Toulmin called “grounds.” In the example above about the dangers of e-cigarettes, the writer might provide evidence of deaths and hospital visits of teenagers that were reported in newspaper articles and in editorials. The writer might also include a personal story from a victim or an important testimony from a respected doctor as evidence that the claims and reasons are true.

Evidence can also be used to support and develop the assumption, which Toulmin called “backing.” In the iPhone example, the writer may support the criteria about the camera and processing speed by finding user reports on the Internet or by finding statistics that show that most consumers use the photography option of cell phones most often. In short, the writer is looking for whatever evidence there is to support the importance that has been placed upon cell phone cameras and processing speed. This writer might benefit from searching the Internet and finding such articles as Chase Buckle’s “Which Smartphone Features Really Matter to Consumers?”

The Toulmin Model can be used to analyze your own arguments and those of others. Read the following article; afterwards, you will find a “reverse outline,” one way of putting this argument into the Toulmin Model.

The following outline shows one way of rendering “Breed-Specific Legislation Sample Letter from Veterinarian” in the Toulmin Model, which is a letter rich in logos. This outline only addresses the main reason highlighted in the template letter.

Claim:

The local government should not consider breed-specific legislation as a strategy to make citizens safer from dog bites.

Reason:

Because these breed-specific policies are not effective.

Assumption: It is important for lawmakers to base their policies on effectiveness.

Evidence for Reason:

• States that effectiveness is a problem because it is difficult to determine the breed of dogs; cites research stating that even experts may find it difficult to determine the primary breed of a dog.
• Provides support that these policies are ineffective because they can be regarded as discriminatory, against both dog owners and the dogs themselves.
• Claims that effectiveness is a problem because it does not get to the heart of the problem – the responsibility of owners.
• Argues that effectiveness is also challenged because it is difficult to generalize a “bite rate” based upon the specific type of dog.