Argumentation

SUBMISSION 2What it Entails

THREE SECTIONS

1. Introduction to social problem

2. Background/history/ current policy

3. In-depth presentation of the sides

INTRODUCTIONSection I

INTRODUCTION(approximately 3-4 pages)

• Introduction• Social problem– Significance– Statistics– Targets

• Definitions (as needed)• Brief overview of the controversy• Conclude with normative question

Significance of the Social Problem

• The social problem that underlies your controversy (the broad macro problem)

• Statistics for the problem, describing the scope– Demonstrate that this is a problem– Targets- who is hurt by the social problem

• Why it is important that the problem is solved

Watch out for bias

Brief Overview of the Controversy

• Identify the actors involved (parties to the controversy)

• Identify the issues that shape the debate

• Identify the values central to each side

Definitions

• The Current controversial policy

• Important words in topic sentence (e.g. DOMA)

• Relevant law(s), guidelines, etc.

The Solution

• Conclude the introduction with your normative question

• The normative question that is also the title of your paper

INTRODUCTION (Sec 1)

• After Reading your introduction, the reader should:– Understand why this is an important controversy– Understand who is affected by this problem– Understand why this problem needs to be solved– Understand the major actors and what they want– Understand the controversial solution to solve the

problem

Your introduction should scare the reader by convincing him/her that the fate of the world depends on

solving this problem

BACKGROUND AND HISTORYSection 2

BACKGROUND/HISTORY(Approximately 5 pages)

• Goal: historical context to understand current controversy

• Starting place: it should be far back enough to describe the modern dilemma

• Ending point: Most recent events

Finish With The Current Policy

• What is it (be specific)

• How does it work

• What are the problems

For Each Key Event

• Why was it controversial

• Which side passed it

• Who opposed it

Sources

• Vary your Sources

• Do not simply cut and paste from CQ Researcher

• Reliance on a single source is transcribing!

Things to avoid

• Going Back too far in time

• Wikipedia (of course)

• Missing out on important events

Avoid Rabbit Holes

• Stick to the relevant historical events

• Avoid getting off-track

• Just because you find it interesting doesn’t mean it is important

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

• At the End of this section, the reader should:– Know the policy attempts at solving the social

policy– Know the deficiencies with the current policy– Know the current policy: As of Spring 2013, what

is the current policy.

PRESENTATION OF EACH SIDESection 3

What it Contains (4-5 Pages for Each Side)

• Stakeholders

• Arguments

• Issues

• Plans

Who are the Stakeholders?• Identify the General Stakeholders

• Identify the Specific Stakeholders– Tell me why the group matters– Tell me what they value

• Conclude by identifying their major arguments on the solution

Issues and Arguments.

• Introduce the issues in a paragraph listing the issues

• You must have 3 for each side

For Each Issue• Identify the Issue

• Provide the argument why they want it

• Provide the evidence to support their argument

• Plans for solving the problem

At the End of this Section

• The Reader will know– The Parties to the Controversy– The issues surrounding the controversial solution– The Arguments for and against the controversial

solution– The evidence supporting each argument– How each side is trying to enact the solution

MECHANICS

• Approximately 14-16 pages long (Minimum of 12)

• Works Cited• Correct MLA form throughout• Style– In accordance with Capstone guidelines– Polished, proofed

• DUE: In Class 3/8/2013

The Death of Socrates

• He is dead, do not use his method

• Do not ask a question, and then answer it.

• Just write the answer

For Submission 2

• Present arguments that make sense

• Present arguments from actors that are politically relevant

• Present arguments that are directly related to the issues.

For Submission 2

• Keep writing 1 page a day or finding 1 good source a day

• Spend at least 1 hour a day in a place where you are most comfortable for studying

• Don’t

This submission is 25% of your final grade… take it seriously

THE PARTS OF ARGUMENT

Identifying Arguments

• What Cannot be argued– Discrete Facts without interpretation- Obama won

the 2008 election

– Impossibilities (who would win the bear or the lion)

– Preferences (Mr. Pibb is better than Dr. Pepper)

– Beliefs beyond Human experience (invoking God)

Analyzing Arguments and Evidence• Valid arguments have:– An Argument (what the proponent/opponent

wants)– A well justified reason and Evidence (why they

want it)• Accurate and logical

– A Policy conclusion• The policy based on this conclusion

An example of an Argument

• Argument: We need to insure the 30+ Million Americans do not have health care

• Reason: Persons without health care drive up the cost of insurance for all Americans

• Evidence- Without insurance, it will cost us 1 trillion dollars

• Conclusion: We should implement a single-payer plan proposed by Congress

How to Analyze the Argument

• Is the argument non-normative?

• Does the argument present any supporting data?

• What is the source of the data? Is it trustworthy?

What Qualifies as evidence

• Research studies and Surveys– Method• Phone, in person, mail

– Sample size• Larger is better if collected properly

– Sponsor• Many research studies are very dated

What qualifies as Evidence

• Case Studies– An application of the policy solution to a smaller

group• State level• Municipal.

– Be Careful• May not be generalizable• Apples to oranges• Remember that the United States is unique

What Qualifies as Evidence

• Expert Testimony – http://www.kvue.com/news/politics/Professor-Hutchison-campaign-on-death-watch-after-poll-83486467.html

– Can be misleading– Not every expert is really an expert

• Precedents– Previous attempts at policy– Examine the similarities and dissimilarities– E.g. 1994 vs. 2010 Health Care Bill

The Lowest Form

• “Remember when is the lowest form of conversation”

• Personal experience is the weakest form of evidence• Stories• Hypothetical Examples

STAKEHOLDERS

Interest Groups as Stakeholders

What is Important• Money

– www.opensecrets.org

• Size/Cohesiveness

• Access

What is not• Pure Grassroots• Unconventional

tactics• Everything that is not

on the left hand side.

When Looking at Politicians

Who Matters• Must be elected, or well

known candidates

• The more senior the better

• The more members of their party in the legislature, the better

Who Does Not• Old elected officials

(George W. Bush)

• Candidates and parties who do not have a chance

• Lower-level bureaucrats

Decision makers are more important than non-decision

makers

FALLACIES

Fallacies

• A way of making a persuasive argument, via a mistake in reasoning

• Faulty Logic

Ecological Fallacy

• Using Aggregate Data to infer individual opinions. (taking means or grouped data and using it to explain the actions of individuals)

• Also called the fallacy of division- if the whole possesses a quality, but the parts might not

An Example

• On Mr. Burns Wanting to bowl: "Call this an unfair generalization if you must, but old people are no good at everything." Moe the Bartender from the Simpsons

Exception Fallacy

• Taking individual behavior and applying to a group.

• Stereotyping

• Applying the preferences of one actor to a class of political actors

• Using one extreme “story” to justify macro-level policy

How Others view Texas

How We View Others

Hasty Generalization

• Using a small or non-representative sample to prove a point. (a type of exception fallacy)

• Not looking at all the independent variables, to explain a dependent variable

Survey Says….

Baptist and Syphilis

Faulty Generalization

• An example of the exception fallacy

• Evaluating everyone with criteria that apply only to some

• Be wary of saying that “Democrats”, “Republicans”, Liberals, Conservatives, believe something. Attach names with parties.

This was Real

AD HOMINEN ("to the man“)

• Discredit a person's qualities or circumstances

• It consists of citing irrelevant facts about a person's actions or character in an effort to undermine his position

An Example

• You cannot trust Dick Cheney, everyone knows he worked for an Oil Company.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

• Expert Authorities can be useful for argumentation (e.g. Federal Data).

• Fallacious if the authority is not really an expert or when there are trust issues

– Because Sean Penn likes Hugo Chavez, we must respect his foreign policy decisions.

An Appeal To Authority

EMOTIONAL APPEAL

• Appeals to fear and pity with little relevance to the issue

• Often Involve threats, pity, appeals to fear, evoke sympathy.

• Cutesy stories

• Here is a example

SLIPPERY SLOPE

• One undesirable effect will automatically lead to another and another

Argument from Ignorance

• In Logic, all hypotheses are false until proven true.

• In this case, you assume something is true until proven false.– Kennedy assassination was an inside job– 9/11 was an inside job- prove me wrong.

For Submission 2

• Present arguments that make sense

• Present arguments from actors that are politically relevant

• Present arguments that are directly related to the issues.

For Submission 2

• Keep writing 1 page a day or finding 1 good source a day

• Spend at least 1 hour a day in a place where you are most comfortable for studying

• Don’t