Nike gaze 2 radiation sunglasses ladies

Argument Analysis

Left: Pacific Press/Getty Images; right: © Akintunde Akinleye/Corbis

Everything Is an Argument 1

On May 7, 2014, First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama turned to new media to express her concern over the kidnapping of more than 200 young Nigerian girls by the terrorist group Boko Haram. Her tweet, along with an accompanying photo highlighting the trending hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, ramped up an argument over what the interna- tional community could do to stop an organization responsible for thou- sands of deaths in northeastern Nigeria. In bringing her appeal to Twitter, the First Lady acknowledged the persuasive power of social media like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and innumerable political and social blogs. The hashtag itself, it would appear, had become a potent tool for rallying audiences around the globe to support specific ideas or causes. But to what ends?

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 3 6/16/15 2:59 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS4

Just weeks before Obama’s notable appeal, a U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki drew attention with a tweet of her own aimed at countering attempts by Russian social media to co-opt the U.S. State Department’s #UnitedforUkraine hashtag:

The Russian government, it seems, having just annexed the Crimea region and threatening all of Ukraine, was showing more skill than Western nations at using Twitter and other social media to win propa- ganda points in the diplomatic crisis. Yet Psaki’s response via Twitter earned her disapproval from those who interpreted her social media riposte as further evidence of U.S. weakness. For instance, Texas senator Ted Cruz tweeted in reply to Psaki:

Even Michelle Obama took heat for her earnest appeal on behalf of kidnapped girls the same age as her own daughters. While celebrities such as Amy Poehler and Mary J. Blige posted supportive items, Obama’s tweet got quick international pushback from those who argued (in 140 characters) that the anti-terrorist use of drones by the U.S. military was no less reprehensible than the tactics of Boko Haram. And domestic crit- ics saw Obama’s message as a substitute for real action, with columnist Jeffrey Goldberg chiding well-intentioned activists with a dose of reality:

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 4 6/16/15 2:59 PM

C H A P T E R 1 EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT 5

Clearly, social media play out on crowded, two-way channels, with claims and counterclaims whizzing by, fast and furious. Such tools reach audiences and they also create them, offering an innovative way to make and share arguments. Just as important, anyone, anywhere, with access to a phone, tablet, or other electronic device, can launch arguments that circle the globe in seconds. Social networking and digital tools are increasingly available to all.

We’ve opened this chapter with dramatic, perhaps troubling, examples of Twitter controversies to introduce our claim that argu- ments are all around us, in every medium, in every genre, in everything we do. There may be an argument on the T-shirt you put on in the morning, in the sports column you read on the bus, in the prayers you utter before an exam, in the off-the-cuff political remarks of a teacher lecturing, in the assurances of a health center nurse that “This won’t hurt one bit.”

The clothes you wear, the foods you eat, and the groups you join make nuanced, sometimes unspoken assertions about who you are and what you value. So an argument can be any text — written, spoken, aural, or visual — that expresses a point of view. In fact, some theorists claim that language is inherently persuasive. When you say, “Hi, how’s it going?” in one sense you’re arguing that your hello deserves a response. Even humor makes an argument when it causes readers to recognize — through bursts of laughter or just a faint smile — how things are and how they might be different.

More obvious as arguments are those that make direct claims based on or drawn from evidence. Such writing often moves readers to recog- nize problems and to consider solutions. Persuasion of this kind is usu- ally easy to recognize:

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed by Congress 30 years ago this July, is a gross violation of civil liberties and must be repealed. It is absurd and unjust that young Americans can vote, marry, enter contracts, and serve in the military at 18 but cannot buy an alcoholic drink in a bar or restaurant.

— Camille Paglia, “The Drinking Age Is Past Its Prime”

We will become a society of a million pictures without much memory, a society that looks forward every second to an immediate replication of what it has just done, but one that does not sustain the difficult labor of transmitting culture from one generation to the next.

— Christine Rosen, “The Image Culture”

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 5 6/16/15 2:59 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS6

R E S P O N D. Can an argument really be any text that expresses a point of view? What kinds of arguments — if any — might be made by the following items?

a Boston Red Sox cap

a Livestrong bracelet

the “explicit lyrics” label on a best-selling rap CD

the health warnings on a package of cigarettes

a Tesla Model S electric car

a pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses

Why We Make Arguments

In the politically divided and entertainment-driven culture of the United States today, the word argument may well call up negative images: the hostile scowl or shaking fist of a politician or news “opinionator” who wants to drown out other voices and prevail at all costs. This winner- take-all view turns many citizens off to the whole process of using rea- soned conversation to identify, explore, and solve problems. Hoping to avoid personal conflict, many people now sidestep opportunities to speak their mind on issues shaping their lives and work. We want to counter this attitude throughout this book.

Some arguments, of course, are aimed at winning, especially those related to politics, business, and law. Two candidates for office, for example, vie for a majority of votes; the makers of one smartphone try to outsell their competitors by offering more features at a lower price; and two lawyers try to outwit each other in pleading to a judge and jury. In your college writing, you may also be called on to make arguments that appeal to a “judge” and “jury” (perhaps your instructor and class- mates). You might, for instance, argue that students in every field should be required to engage in service learning projects. In doing so, you will need to offer better arguments or more convincing evidence than poten- tial opponents — such as those who might regard service learning as a politicized or coercive form of education. You can do so reasonably and responsibly, no name-calling required.

There are many reasons to argue and principled ways to do so. We explore some of them in this section.

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 6 6/16/15 2:59 PM

C H A P T E R 1 EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT 7

Arguments to Convince and Inform

We’re stepping into an argument ourselves in drawing what we hope is a useful distinction between convincing and — in the next section — persuading. (Feel free to disagree with us.) Arguments to convince lead audiences to accept a claim as true or reasonable — based on informa- tion or evidence that seems factual and reliable; arguments to persuade then seek to move people beyond conviction to action. Academic argu- ments often combine both elements.

Many news reports and analyses, white papers, and academic articles aim to convince audiences by broadening what they know about a sub- ject. Such fact-based arguments might have no motives beyond laying out what the facts are. Here’s an opening paragraph from a 2014 news story by Anahad O’Connor in the New York Times that itself launched a thousand arguments (and lots of huzzahs) simply by reporting the results of a recent scientific study:

Many of us have long been told that saturated fat, the type found in meat, butter and cheese, causes heart disease. But a large and exhaus- tive new analysis by a team of international scientists found no evi- dence that eating saturated fat increased heart attacks and other cardiac events.

— Anahad O’Connor, “Study Questions Fat and Heart Disease Link”

Wow. You can imagine how carefully the reporter walked through the scientific data, knowing how this new information might be understood and repurposed by his readers.

Similarly, in a college paper on viability of nuclear power as an alter- native source of energy, you might compare the health and safety record of a nuclear plant to that of other forms of energy. Depending upon your findings and your interpretation of the data, the result of your fact-based presentation might be to raise or alleviate concerns readers have about nuclear energy. Of course, your decision to write the argument might be driven by your conviction that nuclear power is much safer than most people believe.

Even an image can offer an argument designed both to inform and to convince. On the following page, for example, editorial cartoonist Bob Englehart finds a way to frame an issue on the minds of many students today, the burden of crushing debt. As Englehart presents it, the problem is impossible to ignore.

In the excerpt from his book

Disability and the Media:

Prescriptions for Change,

Charles A. Riley II intends to

convince other journalists to

adopt a less stereotypical language

for discussing diversity.

LINK TO P. 527

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 7 6/16/15 2:59 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS8

Arguments to Persuade

Today, climate change may be the public issue that best illustrates the chasm that sometimes separates conviction from persuasion. The weight of scientific research may convince people that the earth is warming, but persuading them to act on that knowledge doesn’t fol- low easily. How then does change occur? Some theorists suggest that persuasion — understood as moving people to do more than nod in agreement — is best achieved via appeals to emotions such as fear, anger, envy, pride, sympathy, or hope. We think that’s an oversimplifi- cation. The fact is that persuasive arguments, whether in advertise- ments, political blogs, YouTube videos, or newspaper editorials, draw upon all the appeals of rhetoric (see p. 21) to motivate people to act — whether it be to buy a product, pull a lever for a candidate, or volunteer for a civic organization. Here, once again, is Camille Paglia driving home her argument that the 1984 federal law raising the drink- ing age in the United States to 21 was a catastrophic decision in need of reversal:

What this cruel 1984 law did is deprive young people of safe spaces where they could happily drink cheap beer, socialize, chat, and flirt in a free but controlled public environment. Hence in the 1980s we immediately got the scourge of crude binge drinking at campus fraternity keg parties, cut off from the adult world. Women in

© Bob Englehart/Cagle Cartoons, Inc.

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 8 6/16/15 2:59 PM

C H A P T E R 1 EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT 9

that boorish free-for-all were suddenly fighting off date rape. Club drugs — Ecstasy, methamphetamine, ketamine (a veterinary tranquilizer) — surged at raves for teenagers and on the gay male circuit scene.

Paglia chooses to dramatize her argument by sharply contrasting a safer, more supportive past with a vastly more dangerous present when drink- ing was forced underground and young people turned to highly risky behaviors. She doesn’t hesitate to name them either: binge drinking, club drugs, raves, and, most seriously, date rape. This highly rhetorical, one might say emotional, argument pushes readers hard to endorse a call for serious action — the repeal of the current drinking age law.

Admit it, Duchess of Cornwall. You knew abandoned dogs need homes, but it was heartrending photos on the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home Web site that persuaded you to visit the shelter. WPA Pool/Getty Images

R E S P O N D. Apply the distinction made here between convincing and persuading to the way people respond to two or three current political or social issues. Is there a useful distinction between being convinced and being persuaded? Explain your position.

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 9 6/16/15 2:59 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS10

Arguments to Make Decisions

Closely allied to arguments to convince and persuade are arguments to examine the options in important matters, both civil and personal — from managing out-of-control deficits to choosing careers. Arguments to make decisions occur all the time in the public arena, where they are often slow to evolve, caught up in electoral or legal squabbles, and yet driven by a genuine desire to find consensus. In recent years, for instance, Americans have argued hard to make decisions about health care, the civil rights of same-sex couples, and the status of more than 11 million immigrants in the country. Subjects so complex aren’t debated in straight lines. They get haggled over in every imaginable medium by thousands of writers, politicians, and ordinary citizens working alone or via political organizations to have their ideas considered.

For college students, choosing a major can be an especially momen- tous personal decision, and one way to go about making that decision is to argue your way through several alternatives. By the time you’ve explored the pros and cons of each alternative, you should be a little closer to a reasonable and defensible decision.

Sometimes decisions, however, are not so easy to make.

www.CartoonStock.com

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 10 6/16/15 2:59 PM

C H A P T E R 1 EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT 11

Arguments to Understand and Explore

Arguments to make decisions often begin as choices between opposing positions already set in stone. But is it possible to examine important issues in more open-ended ways? Many situations, again in civil or per- sonal arenas, seem to call for arguments that genuinely explore possi- bilities without constraints or prejudices. If there’s an “opponent” in such situations at all (often there is not), it’s likely to be the status quo or a current trend which, for one reason or another, puzzles just about everyone. For example, in trying to sort through the extraordinary com- plexities of the 2011 budget debate, philosophy professor Gary Gutting was able to show how two distinguished economists — John Taylor and Paul Krugman — draw completely different conclusions from the exact same sets of facts. Exploring how such a thing could occur led Gutting to conclude that the two economists were arguing from the same facts, all right, but that they did not have all the facts possible. Those missing or unknown facts allowed them to fill in the blanks as they could, thus leading them to different conclusions. By discovering the source of a paradox, Gutting potentially opened new avenues for understanding.

Exploratory arguments can also be personal, such as Zora Neale Hurston’s ironic exploration of racism and of her own identity in the essay “How It Feels to Be Colored Me.” If you keep a journal or blog, you have no doubt found yourself making arguments to explore issues near and dear to you. Perhaps the essential argument in any such piece is the writer’s realization that a problem exists — and that the writer or reader needs to understand it and respond constructively to it if possible.

Explorations of ideas that begin by trying to understand another’s perspective have been described as invitational arguments by research- ers Sonja Foss, Cindy Griffin, and Josina Makau. Such arguments are interested in inviting others to join in mutual explorations of ideas based on discovery and respect. Another kind of argument, called Rogerian argument (after psychotherapist Carl Rogers), approaches audiences in similarly nonthreatening ways, finding common ground and establish- ing trust among those who disagree about issues. Writers who take a Rogerian approach try to see where the other person is coming from, looking for “both/and” or “win/win” solutions whenever possible. (For more on Rogerian strategies, see Chapter 7.)

The infographic “Speak My

Language” by Santos Henarejos

explores how technology has

affected the way we communicate

around the world.

LINK TO P. 585

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 11 6/16/15 2:59 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS12

R E S P O N D. What are your reasons for making arguments? Keep notes for two days about every single argument you make, using our broad definition to guide you. Then identify your reasons: How many times did you aim to con- vince? To inform? To persuade? To explore? To understand?

Occasions for Argument

In a fifth-century BCE textbook of rhetoric (the art of persuasion), the philosopher Aristotle provides an ingenious strategy for classifying arguments based on their perspective on time — past, future, and pres- ent. His ideas still help us to appreciate the role arguments play in soci- ety in the twenty-first century. As you consider Aristotle’s occasions for argument, remember that all such classifications overlap (to a certain extent) and that we live in a world much different than his.

The risks of Rogerian argument © David Sipress/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 12 6/16/15 2:59 PM

C H A P T E R 1 EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT 13

Arguments about the Past

Debates about what has happened in the past, what Aristotle called forensic arguments, are the red meat of government, courts, businesses, and academia. People want to know who did what in the past, for what reasons, and with what liability. When you argue a speeding ticket in court, you are making a forensic argument, claiming perhaps that you weren’t over the limit or that the officer’s radar was faulty. A judge will have to decide what exactly happened in the past in the unlikely case you push the issue that far.

More consequentially, in 2014 the federal government and General Motors found themselves deeply involved in arguments about the past as investigators sought to determine just exactly how the massive auto com- pany had allowed a serious defect in the ignition switches of its cars to go undisclosed and uncorrected for a decade. Drivers and passengers died or were injured as engines shut down and airbags failed to go off in subse- quent collisions. Who at General Motors was responsible for not diagnos- ing the fault? Were any engineers or executives liable for covering up the problem? And how should victims of this product defect or their families be compensated? These were all forensic questions to be thoroughly investigated, argued, and answered by regulatory panels and courts.

From an academic perspective, consider the lingering forensic argu- ments over Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of America. Are his expeditions cause for celebration or notably unhappy chapters in human history? Or some of both? Such arguments about past actions — heated enough to spill over into the public realm — are common in disciplines such as history, philosophy, and ethics.

Mary Barra, the chief executive officer of General Motors, testifies before a congressional panel looking into problems with ignition switches in the company’s cars. AP Photo/Ron Sachs/ picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 13 6/16/15 2:59 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS14

Arguments about the Future

Debates about what will or should happen in the future — deliberative arguments — often influence policies or legislation for the future. Should local or state governments allow or even encourage the use of self-driving cars on public roads? Should colleges and universities lend support to more dual- credit programs so that students can earn college credits while still in high school? Should coal-fired power plants be phased out of our energy grid? These are the sorts of deliberative questions that legislatures, committees, or school boards routinely address when making laws or establishing policies.

But arguments about the future can also be speculative, advancing by means of projections and reasoned guesses, as shown in the following passage from an essay by media maven Marc Prensky. He is arguing that it is time for some college or university to be the first to ban physical, that is to say paper, books on its campus, a controversial proposal to say the least:

Colleges and professors exist, in great measure, to help “liberate” and connect the knowledge and ideas in books. We should certainly pass on to our students the ability to do this. But in the future those liber- ated ideas — the ones in the books (the author’s words), and the ones about the books (the reader’s own notes, all readers’ thoughts and commentaries) — should be available with a few keystrokes. So, as counterintuitive as it may sound, eliminating physical books from col- lege campuses would be a positive step for our 21st-century students, and, I believe, for 21st-century scholarship as well. Academics, researchers, and particularly teachers need to move to the tools of the future. Artifacts belong in museums, not in our institutions of higher learning.

— Marc Prensky, “In the 21st-Century University, Let’s Ban Books”

Arguments about the Present

Arguments about the present — what Aristotle terms epideictic or cere- monial arguments — explore the current values of a society, affirming or challenging its widely shared beliefs and core assumptions. Epideictic arguments are often made at public and formal events such as inaugural addresses, sermons, eulogies, memorials, and graduation speeches.

Amy Davidson’s article “Four Ways

the Riley Ruling Matters for the NSA”

predicts some probable outcomes

of an important Supreme Court

decision.

LINK TO P. 786

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 14 6/16/15 2:59 PM

C H A P T E R 1 EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT 15

Members of the audience listen carefully as credible speakers share their wisdom. For example, as the selection of college commencement speakers has grown increasingly contentious, Ruth J. Simmons, the first African American woman to head an Ivy League college, used the oppor- tunity of such an address (herself standing in for a rejected speaker) to offer a timely and ringing endorsement of free speech. Her words per- fectly illustrate epideictic rhetoric:

Universities have a special obligation to protect free speech, open dis- course and the value of protest. The collision of views and ideologies is in the DNA of the academic enterprise. No collision avoidance tech- nology is needed here. The noise from this discord may cause others to criticize the legitimacy of the academic enterprise, but how can knowledge advance without the questions that overturn misconcep- tions, push further into previously impenetrable areas of inquiry and assure us stunning breakthroughs in human knowledge? If there is anything that colleges must encourage and protect it is the persistent questioning of the status quo. Our health as a nation, our health as women, our health as an industry requires it.

— Ruth J. Simmons, Smith College, 2014

Perhaps more common than Smith’s impassioned address are values arguments that examine contemporary culture, praising what’s admira- ble and blaming what’s not. In the following argument, student Latisha Chisholm looks at the state of rap music after Tupac Shakur:

With the death of Tupac, not only did one of the most intriguing rap rivalries of all time die, but the motivation for rapping seems to have changed. Where money had always been a plus, now it is obviously more important than wanting to express the hardships of Black com- munities. With current rappers, the positive power that came from the desire to represent Black people is lost. One of the biggest rappers now got his big break while talking about sneakers. Others announce retirement without really having done much for the soul or for Black people’s morale. I equate new rappers to NFL players that don’t love the game anymore. They’re only in it for the money. . . . It looks like the voice of a people has lost its heart.

— Latisha Chisholm, “Has Rap Lost Its Soul?”

As in many ceremonial arguments, Chisholm here reinforces common values such as representing one’s community honorably and fairly.

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 15 6/16/15 2:59 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS16

R E S P O N D. In a recent magazine, newspaper, or blog, find three editorials — one that makes a forensic argument, one a deliberative argument, and one a cere- monial argument. Analyze the arguments by asking these questions: Who is arguing? What purposes are the writers trying to achieve? To whom are they directing their arguments? Then decide whether the arguments’ pur- poses have been achieved and how you know.

Are rappers since Tupac — like Jay Z — only in it for the money? Many epideictic arguments either praise or blame contemporary culture in this way. Michael N. Todaro/ FilmMagic/Getty Images

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 16 6/16/15 2:59 PM

C H A P T E R 1 EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT 17

Kinds of Argument

Yet another way of categorizing arguments is to consider their status or stasis — that is, the specific kinds of issues they address. This approach, called stasis theory, was used in ancient Greek and Roman civilizations to provide questions designed to help citizens and lawyers work their way through legal cases. The status questions were posed in sequence because each depended on answers from the preceding ones. Together, the queries helped determine the point of contention in an argument — where the parties disagreed or what exactly had to be proven. A modern version of those questions might look like the following:

● Did something happen?

● What is its nature?

● What is its quality or cause?

● What actions should be taken?

Each stasis question explores a different aspect of a problem and uses different evidence or techniques to reach conclusions. You can use these questions to explore the aspects of any topic you’re considering. You’ll discover that we use the stasis issues to define key types of argument in Part 2.

Did Something Happen? Arguments of Fact

There’s no point in arguing a case until its basic facts are established. So an argument of fact usually involves a statement that can be proved or disproved with specific evidence or testimony. For example, the question

Occasions for Argument

Past Future Present What is it called? Forensic Deliberative Epideictic

What are its concerns? What happened in the past?

What should be done in the future?

Who or what deserves praise or blame?

What does it look like? Court decisions, legal briefs, legislative hear- ings, investigative reports, academic studies

White papers, proposals, bills, regulations, mandates

Eulogies, graduation speeches, inaugural addresses, roasts

01_LUN_9864_ch01_001_027.indd 17 6/16/15 2:59 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS18

of pollution of the oceans — is it really occurring? — might seem rela- tively easy to settle. Either scientific data prove that the oceans are being dirtied as a result of human activity, or they don’t. But to settle the mat- ter, writers and readers need to ask a number of other questions about the “facts”:

● Where did the facts come from?

● Are they reliable?

● Is there a problem with the facts?

● Where did the problem begin and what caused it?

For more on arguments based on facts, see Chapters 4 and 8.

What Is the Nature of the Thing? Arguments of Definition

Some of the most hotly debated issues in American life today involve questions of definition: we argue over the nature of the human fetus, the meaning of “amnesty” for immigrants, the boundaries of sexual assault. As you might guess, issues of definition have mighty consequences, and decades of debate may nonetheless leave the matter unresolved. Here, for example, is how one type of sexual assault is defined in an important 2007 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice by the National Institute of Justice:

We consider as incapacitated sexual assault any unwanted sexual contact occurring when a victim is unable to provide consent or stop what is happening because she is passed out, drugged, drunk, inca- pacitated, or asleep, regardless of whether the perpetrator was respon- sible for her substance use or whether substances were administered without her knowledge. We break down incapacitated sexual assault into four subtypes. . . .