Search

Argument can be defined as a process whereby people reason their way from one set of problematic ideas to the choice of another. This definition implies three primary dimensions; argument is problematic, it is based on the perceptions and choices of people, and its rationality is grounded in a variable logic of more or less rather than a categorical logic of yes or no. Six characteristics of argument along this construct include (1) an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or the reinforcement of an old one; (2) a perceived rationale to support that leap--an arguer must accept reasons why the claim leaped to is worthy at least of being entertained; (3) a choice among two or more competing options; (4) a regulation of uncertainty--if people have too little uncertainty to regulate, they have no problems to solve and argument isn't necessary; (5) a willingness to risk confrontation of a claim with peers; and (6) a frame of reference shared optimally--arguers must share to an optimal degree elements of one another's world views. (HOD)

During the past decade, debators have become more flexible in their affirmative analysis of the resolution. One case approach that an affirmative team may adopt is the utilities or no-needs need case in which they argue for the elimination of the status quo because it is unnecessary or restrictive or both. This paper examines: (1) the four standard requirements of a prima facie case dealing with propositions of policy (i.e., presumption, evils, inherency, and solution); (2) some of the problems which may accompany the utilities case; and (3) the validity of the utilities case within the parameters established. The conclusion drawn from a discussion of these issues is that the utilities case does offer a valid approach for a resolution of discontinuance or a resolution of reduction, but two problems must be weighted by the affirmative team before adopting this approach: if the negative team can indicate some degree of disadvantage, the affirmative case for limited gain may be more easily defeated; and the affirmative team runs a risk with the judges who may not accept the theoretical validity of the utilities case. (TS)

This paper attempts to show that the significant difference between the enthymeme and the dialectic syllogism rests on the similarity of purpose of both dialectic and rhetoric, and on the differences in the respondents to which they address themselves. To support this thesis, the author reviews several contemporary approaches which have dealt with the enthymeme and develops an analysis of the essential requirements of dialectic and rhetoric which affect the characteristics of their respective syllogisms. The author predicts four essential characteristics of the enthymeme based on an assumption made by Aristotle that the rhetorical respondent, while untrained in the assessment of arguments, still has an innate understanding and preference for logical reasoning. The four characteristics are: (1) it must be short, simple, and to the point; (2) to accomplish this, the rhetorician must make use of common knowledge and draw obvious conclusions; (3) since one is arguing from propositions with which the auditor is already familiar, the enthymeme may be stylistically modified; (4) this modified argument has greater persuasive impact than the arguments developed by the educated man. (TS)

This paper reports a study in which eighteen structural and linguistic variables were identified, defined and used in an attempt to determine which variables accounted for a significant amount of the observed variance in the difficulty level of items on two different conditional reasoning tests administered to high school and college students. The use of regression analysis identified a tentative subset of variables which accounted for a significant amount of variance in the proportion of correct judgments of verbal simple deductive arguments of the conditional type. (PEB)

The philosophy department of the Ohio State University began development of a computer-tutorial program, called ENIGMA, in 1972. The aim of the course was to help students to use various logical tools in the analysis of everyday arguments by giving drill-and-practice sessions, testing, and grading examinations. Part of ENIGMA is the propositional argument program which is able to abstract the relevant syntactical form from the student's natural language response and check the response for logical mistakes, gross spelling errors, and violations of propositional integrity. This program can be used in a test as well as a tutorial format. A program for categorical syllogisms has a feature offering the capability of using Venn diagrams to determine validity. The programing language for ENIGMA is Coursewriter II; it is timeshared on an IBM 370/158. It is expected that by spring of 1976 approximately 1,000 students per quarter will use the program. (JY)

The concept of inherency is an important issue in contemporary academic debate, although little attention has been paid to the underlying rationale behind its use. A review of the literature suggests that one purpose of inherency is to demonstrate that the cause of the problem that the affirmative position isolates is accurately described. A second justification assumes that there is a presumption in favor of the current system, and if the problem can be solved with existing programs, those programs should be used, instead of creating new programs. The justification of permanence argues that inherency is needed to demonstrate that the problem isolated by the affirmative is likely to continue in the future. In addition, inherency allows debaters to determine which parts of a given plan are unique to the resolution and which aspects are non-topical, and it provides a balancing comparison between the negative position and the affirmative plan. Finally, one school thought argues that inherency has developed into an abstraction, and that its main value is as a psychological tool utilizing ambiguity. (KS)

Circular reasoning is often employed in comparative advantage debate cases when only a plan and advantages are articulated without adequate reference to the resolution which inspired the proposal. The advancing of such subtopical analyses as debate cases is deleterious to the long-range interests of educational debate because the practice jeopardizes debate programs when witnessed by people outside the college debate fraternity, and the practice is often a waste of time because of fallacious reasoning, analysis, and argumentation. It is time to reexamine the concept of prima facie and to redefine burden of proof. It is recommended that a logical test be imposed by any critic to determine whether circular reasoning is present and that debate practices make sense to lay persons. (TS)

In this paper the writer attempts to derive and apply a theory of validity for inductive or probable argumentation. The following definition of rhetorical validity is proposed: an argument is valid when, in an adversarial situation, the degree of certainty claimed by (or for) a conclusion is less than or equal to that established by its related supporting proof. This definition is based on the following terms and relationships which are consistent with contemporary usage: claims are modified by implicit or explicit qualifiers, claims are drawn from a context in which both favorable and unfavorable evidence resides, and claims should not be considered as valid if they assert a greater probability than is identifiable via scrutiny of the argumentative context. The paper then seeks to establish both empirical and critical procedures for aPplying validity tests to the wide spectrum of nondeductive arguments. A list of references is included. (JM)

This paper argues that the judge who uses argumentation and logic as the sole criteria for determining the winner of an academic debate sees debate as an intellectual contest with speech being only an incidental element. A paradigm for judging is presented and discussed in terms of the following core concepts: analysis, investigation, evidence, reasoning, refutation, and rebuttal. Analysis is the arriving at an understanding of the proposition and the discovering of the inherent issues. Investigation is the process of accumulating information about a proposition. Evidence is an informative statement believed by the listener and employed by an arguer to secure belief in another statement. Reasoning is the process by which we infer a conclusion from premises. Refutation is the attempted destruction of the opponent's argument. Rebuttal is the attempted rebuilding of an argument once it has been attacked. It is concluded that this paradigm is an excellent one for judging an academic debate. (TS)

This course was part of a tutorial focusing on the state of computational semantics, i.e., the state of work on natural language within the artificial intelligence (AI) paradigm. The discussion in the course centered on the philosophers Richard Montague and Ludwig Wittgenstein. The course was divided into three sections: (1) Introduction--discussing trends in the philosophy of language in regard to the role and importance of formalization, and describing and giving some history of the three fundamental notions of logical syntax, meta-language, and an "Lsemantic" definition of truth; (2) Montague--describing his work on the formalization of natural language and giving an account of Montague grammar with examples; and (3) Wittgenstein--showing how some of his ideas are relevant to the present situation of AI and the way they clash with the views of the formalist school. The course emphasized the importance of partial/inductive knowledge in our understanding of language and concluded that to handle language "formally" on a computer, it is in no way necessary to accept tenets based on formal logic. The most fruitful approaches to understanding language are precisely those not subservient to a powerful logical or semantic theory. (TL)