Speech AnxietyMost people experience some level of speech anxiety when they have to speak in front of a group; in fact, public speaking is many people’s greatest fear. Speech anxiety can range from a slight feeling of “nerves” to a nearly incapacitating fear. Some of the most common symptoms of speech anxiety are: shaking, sweating, butterflies in the stomach, dry mouth, rapid heartbeat, and squeaky voice. Although it is often impossible to completely eliminate speech anxiety there are a variety of ways to deal with it and even make it work to your advantage.

About Speech AnxietyExperiencing speech anxiety is normal. Nearly everyone gets nervous when they have to give a speech or a presentation, even experienced speakers. The speakers that look relaxed and confident have simply learned how to handle their anxiety and use it to enhance their performance.

Most of your anxiety is not visible to the audience. You may feel like you are shaking uncontrollably but people in the audience probably cannot even tell. Gain confidence from the fact that you are the only one who knows how nervous you are.

The audience wants you to succeed. Novice speakers commonly feel that the people in the audience are extremely critical and want them to fail. This is very rarely the case. Think about situations where you have been an audience member. Did you want the speaker to fail? Probably not; in fact we are usually quite supportive of speakers and may even feel bad for them if they stumble over a word or lose their train of thought. Most audiences you will address as a student are rooting for you.

Anxiety decreases as a speech progresses. Speech anxiety is usually worst right before a speech and at the beginning of the speech. Most people find that once they get through the introduction their anxiety begins to decrease and confidence increases.

Tips for Dealing with Speech Anxiety

Before the speech . . .

Identify the cause of your nervousness. Write down the reasons why you are nervous to give a speech or presentation. If you come up with something like, “I’m afraid I’ll look stupid” dig a little deeper. What would make you look stupid? You may find that you are really afraid that you will forget what you wanted to say. This will help you pinpoint specific things to work on. If you are afraid you will forget what you wanted to say then spending extra time practicing your speech should reduce that anxiety.

Choose topics that you are interested in. We do not always get to choose topics that we speak about. If you are able to choose your topic pick one that interests you. It is much easier to spend time researching and preparing a presentation on a topic that

you care about than one you have no interest in. You will also be more inclined to display enthusiasm about a topic that you enjoy.

Prepare your speech early and thoroughly. Having to prepare a speech at the last minute will only increase your anxiety. After you have prepared your speech PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!! Practice delivering your speech at least 7 to 10 times before your actual presentation. Be sure that you know the organization of your main points to avoid losing your place. Watch yourself in the mirror while you deliver your speech, this will allow you to see your gestures and body language and practice making eye contact. You can also give your speech to friends or family members and ask them for feedback. Audio or videotaping your speech are other ways to evaluate and improve your delivery. If you are given a time limit for your presentation be sure to use a stopwatch as you give your speech. Time each practice run and make changes to ensure that you will be able to stay within your allotted time. Keep in mind that most of us speak more quickly when we are in front of a real audience.

Know your topic. If you have researched the topic thoroughly you will be certain that you are presenting accurate information and you will be able to answer questions that the audience may ask. These things will greatly increase your confidence.

Be aware of the speech situation. One of the hardest things for a speaker to deal with is a surprise. While we cannot completely avoid surprises we can minimize them. Make sure that you are aware of all aspects of the speech situation ahead of time. Know your time limit, the size of your audience, the make-up of your audience (see audience analysis), what equipment you will have available to you (computer, overhead, podium, easel, etc.), and any other details that may affect your presentation. Also, if you are using any type of technology in your speech (i.e. a PowerPoint presentation) be sure that you have a back-up plan (see Visual Aids and Technology). Technology can be a wonderful tool but it can also be unpredictable.

Set realistic expectations. No one is perfect. Public speaking is difficult to master even seasoned speakers make mistakes. Instead of telling yourself that you have to deliver your speech flawlessly, think realistic things like, “If I lose my place I will calmly scan my notes and then continue my speech” or “Small mistakes aren’t going to ruin my speech.”

Replace negative thoughts with positive ones and visualize success. Thinking negative thoughts increases anxiety. When a negative thought comes to mind try to immediately replace it with positive thoughts. For example, if you think, “I’m going to forget what to say and just stand there,” replace that with thoughts like, “I’ve done a great deal of research and I know this topic well” and “I have practiced my speech many times and I’m going to deliver it just like I practiced.” Other performers such as athletes and musicians have found that visualization can be a powerful tool to improve performance. See yourself delivering the speech with confidence and successfully conveying your message.

Continue gaining experience. One of the best ways to combat speech anxiety is to gain speaking experience. Take any opportunity that you have to speak in public. Speak in your classes or volunteer to give presentations for groups you are involved in - anything that gives you a chance to hone your speaking skills.

On the day of the speech . . .

Exercise. Exercising on the day of a speech can help reduce anxiety and stress.

Use relaxation techniques. Simple relaxation techniques lessen anxiety and allow them to focus on the task at hand. Some of the most common relaxation techniques are: taking deep breaths, tightening and then relaxing your muscles, and visualizing a peaceful scene.

Accept fear and use it. Accept the fact that you are nervous (remember it’s normal to experience speech anxiety) and use that nervous energy to enhance your delivery. Use the extra adrenaline that you get from fear to invigorate your gestures and enthusiasm about your topic. Remember, even the best speakers get nervous, but they use it to their benefit.

Wear clothes that you feel confident in. Most of us have a few outfits that we feel particularly comfortable and confident in. These are good things to wear when you present a speech. If you feel good about how you look standing in front of your audience, you can put all of your focus on your message. You do not want to distract your audience or yourself by adjusting your clothes or hair during your speech.

Act confident and do not profess your anxiety to the audience. Remember that your nervousness is usually invisible to your audience. If you act confident your audience will assume that you are. This can become a positive circular process: the audience gives you the respect of a competent speaker, you receive positive feedback that gives you more confidence in your ability, and the audience gives you more respect. A common mistake that novice speakers make is telling the audience that they are nervous. This does not lessen your anxiety and it tends to make your audience uncomfortable since they want you to succeed. Acting confident is a much more effective strategy.

Find friendly faces in the crowd. While you are speaking find one or two people in the audience that are giving you positive feedback (nodding in agreement, smiling when appropriate, etc.). When you feel nervous make eye contact with those people. Their friendly faces will give you encouragement.

Find ways to hide your anxiety. If your mouth goes dry, be sure to bring a glass of water with you when you speak. If you sweat excessively, wear clothes that will not allow your audience to detect it. If your hands shake, use gestures that mask the shaking.

Argument and DebateDeliberation is the collaborative process of discussing contested issues by considering various perspectives in order to form opinions and guide judgment.

Effective deliberation incorporates sustained and appropriate modes of argumentation. Deliberative practices can take many forms—from discussions, to role-playing exercises, to formal debates. All of these activities lead to exploring differing perspectives and informing various decisions.

What are the basic components of argument and deliberation?Contest issues: Deliberation involves a controversy or unsolved problem in need of resolution.

Exchange opinions: Deliberation is not individual monologues, but a substantial consideration of ideas by multiple group members who advance different perspectives.

Reflect: Deliberation encourages members to acknowledge others’ viewpoints and consider them in relation to their own viewpoint. The inability or unwillingness to consider opposing viewpoints leads to uninformed, and often indefensible, resolutions.

Synthesize: Deliberation combines and builds upon individual contributions to create intellectual activity greater than the sum of its parts.

Reform opinions: Deliberation between individuals sparks deliberation within themselves, challenging and expanding their opinions on issues.

Judge: Deliberation fosters conclusions on critical issues.

What can one argue about?Facts: Rarely are interesting and non-trivial facts so obvious that they invite universal agreement. We do not argue over the location of the Pacific Ocean or the temperature that water boils, for a resolution to such issues is easily reached. However, not all scientific or "factual" issues are beyond dispute, such as the effects of global warming and the cause of AIDS. However, deliberation provides ways to expose the areas of contest and to compare and provide alternate views on competing facts.

Values: The clash of values is a defining marker of contemporary society. Deliberation can raise questions about the tensions between and within value systems that guide decision-making. Most Americans support free speech and the freedom of religion, but when these values come into conflict (such as posting the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse), it is the deliberative process that attempts to resolve these conflicts.

Policies: The range of possibilities for action is almost limitless. Deliberation about policies encourages in-depth analysis of possibilities for change. These debates inevitably incorporate issues of facts and values, but policy deliberations center on legal or legislative changes.

Definitions: Much conflict is ultimately definitional. Deliberation forces advocates to defend their definition against the scrutiny of others. For example, what constitutes "freedom" or what determines "life?"

Interpretations: Competing interpretations of texts or data are prevalent in a complex society. Deliberation can compare interpretations for correspondence to truth, authorial intent, or social productivity; essentially, what someone or something "means" and why that is important.

Research: Studies, data, and articles offer many issues for deliberation. Deliberation can involve issues about methodology, findings, conclusions, or the implications of research. They say statistics do not lie; but the way one uses statistics in an argument or how the statistics were developed are clearly open for debate.

Criteria: The process of decision-making always involves criteria for judgment. Deliberation about criteria assists in making judgments that are satisfactory and legitimated. There are criteria for determining the admissibility of evidence in a courtroom or the viability of a scientific finding; however, the standards themselves are often the subject of intense deliberation.

Theories: Theories are hotly contested in science, social science, and the humanities. Deliberation tests the strengths and weaknesses of theoretical paradigms.

Basic DefinitionsAffirmative/Pro. The side that “affirms” the resolution (is “pro” the issue). For example, the affirmative side in a debate using the resolution of policy, Resolved: The United States federal government should implement a poverty reduction program for its citizens, would advocate for federal government implementation of a poverty reduction program.

Argument. A statement, or claim, followed by a justification, or warrant. Justifications are responses to challenges, often linked by the word “because.” Example: The sun helps people, because the sun activates photosynthesis in plants, which produce oxygen so people can breathe.

Constructive Speech. The first speeches in a debate, where the debaters “construct” their cases by presenting initial positions and arguments.

Cross-examination. Question and answer sessions between debaters.

Debate. A deliberative exercise characterized by formal procedures of argumentation, involving a set resolution to be debated, distinct times for debaters to speak, and a regulated order of speeches given.

Evidence. Supporting materials for arguments. Standards for evidence are field-specific. Evidence can range from personal testimony, statistical evidence, research findings, to other published sources. Quotations drawn from journals, books, newspapers, and other audio-visuals sources are rather common.

Negative/Con. The side that “negates” the resolution (is “con” the issue). For example, the negative side in a debate using the resolution of fact, Resolved: Global warming threatens agricultural production, would argue that global warming does not threaten agricultural production.

Preparation Time. Debates often necessitate time between speeches for students to gather their thoughts and consider their opponent's arguments. This preparation is generally a set period of time and can be used at any time by either side at the conclusion of a speech.

Rebuttal Speech. The last speeches in a debate, where debaters summarize arguments and draw conclusions about the debate.

Resolution. A specific statement or question up for debate. Resolutions usually appear as statements of policy, fact or value.

Statement of policy. Involves an actor (local, national, or global) with power to decide a course of action. For example, Resolved: The United States federal government should implement a poverty reduction program for its citizens.

Statement of fact. Involves a dispute about empirical phenomenon. For example, Resolved: Global warming threatens agricultural production.

Statement of value. Involves conflicting moral dilemmas. For example, Resolved: The death penalty is a justified method of punishment.

Topic. A general issue to debate. Topics could be “The Civil War,” “genetic engineering,” or “Great Books.”

Tips for the Listener in Understanding & Evaluating ReasoningLook for main points. Identify the key issue being debated. Identify if the argument is a controversy over definition, fact, value, or policy, and scrutinize the claim according to the norms for those types of argument. Listen for the thesis, previews, main points, and concluding remarks to sensitize yourself for further analysis.

Look for sub-claims. Main claims often are made up of a series of sub-claims linked together to form an argument. Charting out how these independent sub-claims are organized can assist in dissecting and responding to an argument.

Pay attention to signposts. Headings and subheadings often tip the hand of the speaker, allowing audiences to “guess ahead” to what the speaker is advancing.

Examine context. Fit the argument into scientific, historical, economic, political, or social history. Ask “what ideas does this argument respond to?” and “how might other speakers respond to this argument?”

Scrutinize support and warrants. Since most controversies center on the interpretation of data or the legitimacy of inferences, listeners should examine both to ensure soundness.

Examine potential bias of the author. Experience shapes much argument, so investigating who the author is can shed light on potential biases in their argument. For example, many advocates are funded by groups that have a vested interest in a particular conclusion which could influence the argument unfairly.

Make notes and summaries. Since oral communication is seldom preserved for immediate access, evaluators of oral (and even written) argument should take notes on major themes and arguments for better understanding.

Make special note of confusing sections. Almost all arguments could be more concise or precise—but, if there is a section that is confusing, further focus on that section likely would be productive.

Look for fallacies in reasoning. Some arguments are sound, while some fall prey to bad reasoning. Familiarizing yourself with common fallacies allows you to detect poor reasoning which is crucial to effective evaluation of arguments.

Challenge the advocate. Since even smart people make mistakes, do not assume that the arguer is automatically correct. Feel free to ask questions of the advocate. Dialogue advances argument.

Rephrase arguments. Having summaries in your own words facilitates better comprehension of the argumentative message, often in language and style that is more understandable. Thinking about how you might have advanced a particular argument can expand your understanding.

Break down individual points. Discrete points are often hidden by sheer quantity of information. Outlining, or otherwise demarcating, complex issues can assist listeners in understanding arguments.

Focus on qualifiers and reservations. Statements like “usually,” “generally,” “in most cases,” or “in the case of” often mark places where the arguer is making a claim that could be clarified. A counter-arguer can probe the conditions under which the statement is true by examining the qualifiers and reservations to an argument.

Evidence Format Shows how evidence in a debate is presented to ensure that all necessary source information is available.

Here is one possible way to gather evidence while researching that ensures a speaker will have all the relevant materials necessary to support the arguments made in their speech. Evidence must be in print form (meaning that it is either typed OR it is photocopied, cut and pasted/taped to the page). (If you’ve chosen to photocopy and paste, claims and source citations may be handwritten –neatly of course). Evidence may be either on 8 ½ x 11 paper OR it may be on notecards. This is your choice because you may find one easier than the other to use in your forum debates. Each piece of evidence should be 4-5 sentences in length. They may be longer.

Evidence should follow this structure:CLAIM: (argument you are making/synopsis of statistic/quotation/data/evidence)

SOURCE: Author; date of source; author’s qualifications; article/chapter title; journal/magazine/book title; page number. For Web Sources, provide the same in the same order if available, especially if Dr. Soandso is quoted on a website; also provide: website name, web address, and the DOWNLOAD DATE)

DATA: (the actual statistic, quotation, data that you are using)

Example:

US MARAD Loans guarantee commercial OTEC development

WU ’94 (Chih, Prof. Of Mechanical Engineering at the US Naval Academy, Renewable Energy From the Ocean: A Guide to OTEC, p. 369)

Loan guarantees available from MARAD for ship construction can be arranged to cover 87.5% of the total investment… Such loan approval…carries a guarantee backed by the government. The project will have a negative cash flow in the early years. For investors who have profits in other operations, OTEC losses can be deducted from the total income, thereby reducing the investor’s total taxes, in effect providing income from the operating losses via the tax benefit. Other sponsors will invest because, if profitable operation is attained, the receipts from product sales can lead to a large rate of return on their investment.

Guidelines for Successful Deliberation Outlines general principles applicable to deliberative exercises from discussion to debate.

For ListeningListen to understand. Do not misrepresent others’ opinions or information. Attempt to recognize “where they are coming from” in the development of their position.

Avoid the rush to judgment. Consider all sides intently while you contemplate your opinion. Try to be open to persuasion. Resist the urge to “answer” other viewpoints without taking fully considering them.

For SpeakingFocus on the heart of the discussion. Do not become distracted by personal attacks, stories that go off on tangents, or what you had for lunch. Participants can often assist the facilitator in focusing the conversation on the key issues. Take on the personal responsibility to make relevant comments.

Speak and listen as an individual, not a group member. Try to acknowledge the individuality of each person, rather than associating them with a particular identity or stereotype and assuming elements of their perspective they have not articulated.

Brevity is the soul of wit. Be conscious of the time your responses take up; practicing succinct answers is a worthwhile life goal.

For ArguingIdentify possible realistic options for judgment and move toward a choice. Continue to press the conversation towards common ground and acceptable solutions. Utilize brainstorming techniques and small group technique to generate possible solutions.

Agree to and follow procedures. Guidelines for discussion (turn taking, time limits, opinions expressed) better ensures opportunities to share the communicative space equally.

Take on positions you don’t necessarily agree with. Sometimes advocating viewpoints differently from your own allows you to “test” the argument. Think about the classroom as a laboratory for experimentation, not as a political platform. Playing “devil’s advocate” is a productive exercise to push the group in new directions.

Ask questions about the perspectives not represented. A valuable exercise is to think about what viewpoints are missing in the conversation. Students or the facilitator can adopt these viewpoints as a type of role-play to advance the conversation.

Utilize personal experience when appropriate. Speaking about events in your past to illustrate why you hold beliefs now is a powerful type of evidence. Making it the only type of evidence available for scrutiny, though, is a recipe for a difficult conversation where different experiences become impossible to compare.

For InteractingRespect! Remember the basic rules of engaging other people: do not interrupt them, allow just one person to speak at a time, do not have side conversations, do not make audible sighs or groans, and do not engage in insults.

Be supportive of each other. Rather than saying “I totally disagree with you on this point,” try saying “I think I see where you’re coming from, but have you ever considered…” A successful discussion requires that multiple people listen to each other and genuinely attempt to understand different viewpoints.

Ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak. Including a maximum number of different perspectives enhances deliberation activities. Ensure that individuals have an opportunity to share their perspective at regular points throughout the practice. This is as much a responsibility of participants as it is the responsibility of the instructor; group members should want to hear a variety of opinions in order to arrive at the best possible judgment.

Understand that others have reasons for their opinions. Opinions are generally held for justifiable reasons. Understanding those reasons rather than dismissing them is critical to having something approaching “complete” knowledge. Individual knowledge is always from a perspective—understanding these perspectives allows deliberation to flourish.

Remember social niceties! Much of the skill in having deliberative discussions does not involve content as much as style--slight flattery, occasional deference, acknowledgement of the value of other perspectives, as well as "please" and "thank you" all have a role to play in maintaining a civil conversation.

General Guidelines for Advancing Arguments (Proposes tips to clearly articulate arguments.)

These general guidelines are equally important across all types of argument, from fact to value to policy. They deal generally with style and presentation—in other words, they impact the communicative nature of argumentation.

Strive for clarity. Above all, the key to effective argumentation is clarity in thought and form. Listeners who cannot understand the argument are unlikely to be persuaded.

Emphasize strongest points first and last. The first and last arguments are crucial points of emphasis; the first and last points are memorable because of their placement in the speech. The middle of the speech, or argument, is more often forgotten.

Make explicit the support and inferences. Revealing as much as possible about the methods for generating the support, or data, and inferences or assumptions present in argument allows the audience to understand more of the content as well as establishes credibility.

Consider opposing arguments fairly. Presentation of a speaker’s own arguments as well as balanced representation and response to opposing arguments enhances speaker credibility and develops the position of the speaker.

Start from places of agreement. Arguers are more effective if they start from common ground, and then allow their arguments to branch out from agreed upon definitions, facts, values, or policy. Introducing arguments that are totally alien to an audience’s background or expectations generally results in their dismissal of the argument. This is particularly field dependent, as an arguer would not want to introduce personal issues at a technical conference or explain highly technical concepts to a general public.

Establish and evaluate presumption. Presumption is a concept that enables arguers to establish a contingent truth—“the sun will rise in the morning,” “killing is generally undesirable,” and “students should attend first grade before second grade” are all presumptions that are agreeable until good reasons to believe otherwise have been presented.

Establish and evaluate probabilities. Arguers are rarely 100% sure about the truth of their arguments. As such, they should explicitly assess the certainty with which they make conclusions based on facts. Overstating one’s case can diminish credibility, whereas realistically assessing propensity can enhance ethos.

Argument: The BasicsPresents ways to think about argumentation and components of an argument.

Argument: The Basics

What is Argument?Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. There are five highly relevant characteristics of argument:

Argumentation is a social process. Having an argument involves two or more individuals responding to one another's claim and support for such a claim. Argument is not simply restating the same claims and reasons, rather it is supporting, modifying or defending positions accordingly. As a process, arguments unfold based on the contributions of the dialogue participants.

Argumentation aims to gain adherence from an audience. People argue to gain assent for their positions. The world is filled with ambiguous situations that argument attempts to render more certain. Argumentation is a listener and audience-oriented activity—even if the audience is just one person. Ultimately, one wishes to persuade to audience the act on the advanced claim, whether it is to encourage action or gain support.

Argument is an art. As an art, argument has techniques and general principles, therefore is a learned craft. Although there are suggested guidelines and argumentative tools, there is no science of argument.

Argument involves contested issues. As a mode of influence, argument has persuasion as a central goal. Argument does not occur where there is consensus.

Argument fills much of our lives. Whether we recognize so or not, argument dominates our lives. We spend time arguing about what to eat, who to invite, when to do things, and where to go.

Why Argue?That people argue seems obvious. People argue for four main reasons:

To clarify thinking as individuals or groups. Oftentimes, individuals and groups do not know what they believe but are still faced with information that requires interpretation. Argument can help individuals and groups learn about issues.

To explain or defend actions or beliefs. People have reasons for doing what they do, though oftentimes the reasons are not made clear. Argument seeks to shed light on those reasons and make them explicit and open to scrutiny.

To solve problems or make judgments. The world is filled with controversies about how best to act, all with competing interests and evidence that prescribe a particular direction. Argument helps facilitate decision-making about what actors should and should not do.

To have fun. Participating in the clash of ideas can be an intellectually stimulating process that is primarily pleasurable. Argument is not always serious and deliberative; in fact, most arguments that people have are over relatively unimportant issues.

What's the difference between argument and logic?Argument is fundamentally a communicative exercise, whereas logic is a more philosophical endeavor that does not champion persuasion as a primary goal. Therefore, argument, unlike logic, is an audience oriented process. For an actor to be persuaded of a belief or action, they must find the arguer’s arguments compelling. This requires audience adaptation and development of credibility in addition to developing good, reasonable claims and supporting reasons.

Argument requires audience adaptation. Arguers must keep in mind that not all arguments are persuasive to all audiences. Additionally, some techniques might be more successful than others for specific audiences: professionals are more likely to want polished, analytical, logical presentations, whereas protestors are more likely to want highly charged, emotive argument that rallies moral indignation for their cause.

Argument requires establishing credibility. Credibility, as classical rhetoricians recognize, involves intelligence, character, and goodwill. Intelligence means having knowledge of your subject and arguing in a clear, logical fashion. Character means displaying traits your audience admires—like honesty, sincerity, integrity, and moral commitment. Goodwill means treating your audience with respect, putting your case in terms they can understand, and acknowledging their points of view. Aristotle notes that credibility is often the controlling factor in persuasion; if the audience does not perceive the speaker as credibile, then the audience will not be as attentive to the message itself.

How Does Oral Argument Differ From Written Argument?Memory. Written argument can be referenced again and again. Titles and subtitles give readers a preview of what is to come, aiding comprehension of their reading. The exact phrasing of oral argument disappears as soon as it is spoken. Consequently, listeners often understand oral arguments only in fragments rather in their totality. As a result, very complex arguments are difficult to develop orally.

Physicality. Oral argument intimately involves the human body. Pitch, rate, gesture, and tone of voice, are all forms of nonverbal communication that introduce the potential for misunderstandings. Written argument generally is clearer. Consequently, the friction that is possible from verbal interaction plays a large role in (mis)understanding.

What are Basic Components of an Argument?Argument, while based in logic, is ultimately an exercise in language. Thus, argument is not exclusively the study of deductive or inductive reasoning—these are tasks reserved for philosophical inquiry. Instead, argument investigates the communicative aspects of reasoning. Arguments can be divided into four general components: claim, reason, support, and warrant.

Claims are statements about what is true or good or about what should be done or believed. Claims are potentially arguable. "A liberal arts education prepares students better than other forms of education" is a claim, while "I didn't like the book" is not. No one can really dispute whether I liked the book or not, but one can argue about the benefits of liberal arts. "I thought the movie was cool" is not an arguable statement, however, “that movie was an actor’s best" does present possibilities for argumentation, for people can disagree and offer support for why such an acting job was the actor's best based on criteria of what constitutes an outstanding performance.

Reasons are statements that support a given claim, making a claim more than a mere assertion. Reasons are statements in an argument that pass two tests. First, reasons are answers to the hypothetical challenge: “Why do you say that?” or “What justifications can you give me to believe that?” If a claim about liberal arts education is challenged, a reasoned response could be: “It teaches students to think independently.” Reasons can be linked—most often, not explicitly—to claims with the word "because."

Support substantiates the reasons offered and helps compel audiences to accept an advanced claim. This usually comes in the form of evidence. Evidence comes in different sorts, and tends to vary from one academic field or argument topic to another. Scientific arguments about global warming require different kinds of evidence than mealtime arguments about the latest movie. Evidence offers challenges and support to the reasons given. Evidence comes in various forms, including specific examples, statistics, data, testimonies and narratives, to name only a few.

Warrants are the inferences or assumptions that connect the support to the claim. Warrants often answer the question “what do you have to believe in order to believe that the support justifies the claim or reason being made?” If a reason given to justify a liberal education is the improvement of critical thinking, then the implicit assumption, or warrant, is that critical thinking is good. Warrants are often just assumed and rarely articulated, which can make them difficult to detect.

For Example:Claim: Recent tax cuts should be abandoned.

Reason: …because they only benefit the rich.

Support: Statistics show that the majority of the tax cuts are targeted at upper middle class and upper class families, not poor families and individuals.

Warrant: Tax cuts that only benefit the rich are unfair.

Or,

Claim: The Civil War was caused by slavery.

Reason: …because the Northern states rejected the Southern states reliance on slavery.

Support: The recorded debates in newspapers and state legislatures in the North focused on the South’s reliance on slavery, not economics.

Warrant: The record of debates in newspapers and legislatures is an accurate guide to determining the cause of conflict.

Most argumentative controversies, as can be seen in the examples, center on the truth or validity of the support and warrants. Thus, the interpretation of data and inferences provides the richest source for students of argument to learn.

Argument & Deliberation: An IntroductionDeliberation is the collaborative process of discussing contested issues by considering various perspectives in order to form opinions and guide judgment. Effective deliberation incorporates sustained and appropriate modes of argumentation. Deliberative practices can take many forms—from discussions, to role-playing exercises, to formal debates. All of these activities lead to exploring differing perspectives and informing various decisions.

What are the basic components of argument and deliberation?

Contest issues. Deliberation involves a controversy or unsolved problem in need of resolution.

Exchange opinions. Deliberation is not individual monologues, but a substantial consideration of ideas by multiple group members who advance different perspectives.

Reflect. Deliberation encourages members to acknowledge others’ viewpoints and consider them in relation to their own viewpoint. The inability or unwillingness to consider opposing viewpoints leads to uninformed, and often indefensible, resolutions.

Synthesize. Deliberation combines and builds upon individual contributions to create intellectual activity greater than the sum of its parts.

Reform opinions. Deliberation between individuals sparks deliberation within themselves, challenging and expanding their opinions on issues.

Judge. Deliberation fosters conclusions on critical issues.

What can one argue about?

Facts. Rarely are interesting and non-trivial facts so obvious that they invite universal agreement. We do not argue over the location of the Pacific Ocean or the temperature that water boils, for a resolution to such issues is easily reached. However, not all scientific or "factual" issues are beyond dispute, such as the effects

of global warming and the cause of AIDS. However, deliberation provides ways to expose the areas of contest and to compare and provide alternate views on competing facts.

Values. The clash of values is a defining marker of contemporary society. Deliberation can raise questions about the tensions between and within value systems that guide decision-making. Most Americans support free speech and the freedom of religion, but when these values come into conflict (such as posting the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse), it is the deliberative process that attempts to resolve these conflicts.

Policies. The range of possibilities for action is almost limitless. Deliberation about policies encourages in-depth analysis of possibilities for change. These debates inevitably incorporate issues of facts and values, but policy deliberations center on legal or legislative changes.

Definitions. Much conflict is ultimately definitional. Deliberation forces advocates to defend their definition against the scrutiny of others. For example, what constitutes "freedom" or what determines "life?"

Interpretations. Competing interpretations of texts or data are prevalent in a complex society. Deliberation can compare interpretations for correspondence to truth, authorial intent, or social productivity; essentially, what someone or something "means" and why that is important.

Research. Studies, data, and articles offer many issues for deliberation. Deliberation can involve issues about methodology, findings, conclusions, or the implications of research. They say statistics do not lie; but the way one uses statistics in an argument or how the statistics were developed are clearly open for debate.

Criteria. The process of decision-making always involves criteria for judgment. Deliberation about criteria assists in making judgments that are satisfactory and legitimated. There are criteria for determining the admissibility of evidence in a courtroom or the viability of a scientific finding; however, the standards themselves are often the subject of intense deliberation.

Theories. Theories are hotly contested in science, social science, and the humanities. Deliberation tests the strengths and weaknesses of theoretical paradigms.

Argument & Deliberation: An IntroductionDeliberation is the collaborative process of discussing contested issues by considering various perspectives in order to form opinions and guide judgment. Effective deliberation incorporates sustained and appropriate modes of argumentation. Deliberative practices can take many forms—from discussions, to role-playing exercises, to formal debates. All of these activities lead to exploring differing perspectives and informing various decisions.

What are the basic components of argument and deliberation?

Contest issues. Deliberation involves a controversy or unsolved problem in need of resolution.

Exchange opinions. Deliberation is not individual monologues, but a substantial consideration of ideas by multiple group members who advance different perspectives.

Reflect. Deliberation encourages members to acknowledge others’ viewpoints and consider them in relation to their own viewpoint. The inability or unwillingness to consider opposing viewpoints leads to uninformed, and often indefensible, resolutions.

Synthesize. Deliberation combines and builds upon individual contributions to create intellectual activity greater than the sum of its parts.

Reform opinions. Deliberation between individuals sparks deliberation within themselves, challenging and expanding their opinions on issues.

Judge. Deliberation fosters conclusions on critical issues.

What can one argue about?

Facts. Rarely are interesting and non-trivial facts so obvious that they invite universal agreement. We do not argue over the location of the Pacific Ocean or the temperature that water boils, for a resolution to such issues is easily reached. However, not all scientific or "factual" issues are beyond dispute, such as the effects of global warming and the cause of AIDS. However, deliberation provides ways to expose the areas of contest and to compare and provide alternate views on competing facts.

Values. The clash of values is a defining marker of contemporary society. Deliberation can raise questions about the tensions between and within value systems that guide decision-making. Most Americans support free speech and the freedom of religion, but when these values come into conflict (such as posting the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse), it is the deliberative process that attempts to resolve these conflicts.

Policies. The range of possibilities for action is almost limitless. Deliberation about policies encourages in-depth analysis of possibilities for change. These debates inevitably incorporate issues of facts and values, but policy deliberations center on legal or legislative changes.

Definitions. Much conflict is ultimately definitional. Deliberation forces advocates to defend their definition against the scrutiny of others. For example, what constitutes "freedom" or what determines "life?"

Interpretations. Competing interpretations of texts or data are prevalent in a complex society. Deliberation can compare interpretations for correspondence to truth, authorial intent, or social productivity; essentially, what someone or something "means" and why that is important.

Research. Studies, data, and articles offer many issues for deliberation. Deliberation can involve issues about methodology, findings, conclusions, or the implications of

research. They say statistics do not lie; but the way one uses statistics in an argument or how the statistics were developed are clearly open for debate.

Criteria. The process of decision-making always involves criteria for judgment. Deliberation about criteria assists in making judgments that are satisfactory and legitimated. There are criteria for determining the admissibility of evidence in a courtroom or the viability of a scientific finding; however, the standards themselves are often the subject of intense deliberation.

Theories. Theories are hotly contested in science, social science, and the humanities. Deliberation tests the strengths and weaknesses of theoretical paradigms.