what makes a good speech or argument

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

How to write a speech that your audience remembers

Whether in a work meeting or at an investor panel, you might give a speech at some point. And no matter how excited you are about the opportunity, the experience can be nerve-wracking . 

But feeling butterflies doesn’t mean you can’t give a great speech. With the proper preparation and a clear outline, apprehensive public speakers and natural wordsmiths alike can write and present a compelling message. Here’s how to write a good speech you’ll be proud to deliver.

What is good speech writing?

Good speech writing is the art of crafting words and ideas into a compelling, coherent, and memorable message that resonates with the audience. Here are some key elements of great speech writing:

• It begins with clearly understanding the speech's purpose and the audience it seeks to engage. 
• A well-written speech clearly conveys its central message, ensuring that the audience understands and retains the key points. 
• It is structured thoughtfully, with a captivating opening, a well-organized body, and a conclusion that reinforces the main message. 
• Good speech writing embraces the power of engaging content, weaving in stories, examples, and relatable anecdotes to connect with the audience on both intellectual and emotional levels. 

Ultimately, it is the combination of these elements, along with the authenticity and delivery of the speaker , that transforms words on a page into a powerful and impactful spoken narrative.

What makes a good speech?

A great speech includes several key qualities, but three fundamental elements make a speech truly effective:

Clarity and purpose

Remembering the audience, cohesive structure.

While other important factors make a speech a home run, these three elements are essential for writing an effective speech.

The main elements of a good speech

The main elements of a speech typically include:

• Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your speech and grabs the audience's attention. It should include a hook or attention-grabbing opening, introduce the topic, and provide an overview of what will be covered.
• Opening/captivating statement: This is a strong statement that immediately engages the audience and creates curiosity about the speech topics.
• Thesis statement/central idea: The thesis statement or central idea is a concise statement that summarizes the main point or argument of your speech. It serves as a roadmap for the audience to understand what your speech is about.
• Body: The body of the speech is where you elaborate on your main points or arguments. Each point is typically supported by evidence, examples, statistics, or anecdotes. The body should be organized logically and coherently, with smooth transitions between the main points.
• Supporting evidence: This includes facts, data, research findings, expert opinions, or personal stories that support and strengthen your main points. Well-chosen and credible evidence enhances the persuasive power of your speech.
• Transitions: Transitions are phrases or statements that connect different parts of your speech, guiding the audience from one idea to the next. Effective transitions signal the shifts in topics or ideas and help maintain a smooth flow throughout the speech.
• Counterarguments and rebuttals (if applicable): If your speech involves addressing opposing viewpoints or counterarguments, you should acknowledge and address them. Presenting counterarguments makes your speech more persuasive and demonstrates critical thinking.
• Conclusion: The conclusion is the final part of your speech and should bring your message to a satisfying close. Summarize your main points, restate your thesis statement, and leave the audience with a memorable closing thought or call to action.
• Closing statement: This is the final statement that leaves a lasting impression and reinforces the main message of your speech. It can be a call to action, a thought-provoking question, a powerful quote, or a memorable anecdote.
• Delivery and presentation: How you deliver your speech is also an essential element to consider. Pay attention to your tone, body language, eye contact , voice modulation, and timing. Practice and rehearse your speech, and try using the 7-38-55 rule to ensure confident and effective delivery.

While the order and emphasis of these elements may vary depending on the type of speech and audience, these elements provide a framework for organizing and delivering a successful speech.

How to structure a good speech

You know what message you want to transmit, who you’re delivering it to, and even how you want to say it. But you need to know how to start, develop, and close a speech before writing it. 

Think of a speech like an essay. It should have an introduction, conclusion, and body sections in between. This places ideas in a logical order that the audience can better understand and follow them. Learning how to make a speech with an outline gives your storytelling the scaffolding it needs to get its point across.

Here’s a general speech structure to guide your writing process:

• Explanation 1
• Explanation 2
• Explanation 3

How to write a compelling speech opener

Some research shows that engaged audiences pay attention for only 15 to 20 minutes at a time. Other estimates are even lower, citing that people stop listening intently in fewer than 10 minutes . If you make a good first impression at the beginning of your speech, you have a better chance of interesting your audience through the middle when attention spans fade. 

Implementing the INTRO model can help grab and keep your audience’s attention as soon as you start speaking. This acronym stands for interest, need, timing, roadmap, and objectives, and it represents the key points you should hit in an opening. 

Here’s what to include for each of these points: 

• Interest : Introduce yourself or your topic concisely and speak with confidence . Write a compelling opening statement using relevant data or an anecdote that the audience can relate to.
• Needs : The audience is listening to you because they have something to learn. If you’re pitching a new app idea to a panel of investors, those potential partners want to discover more about your product and what they can earn from it. Read the room and gently remind them of the purpose of your speech. 
• Timing : When appropriate, let your audience know how long you’ll speak. This lets listeners set expectations and keep tabs on their own attention span. If a weary audience member knows you’ll talk for 40 minutes, they can better manage their energy as that time goes on. 
• Routemap : Give a brief overview of the three main points you’ll cover in your speech. If an audience member’s attention starts to drop off and they miss a few sentences, they can more easily get their bearings if they know the general outline of the presentation.
• Objectives : Tell the audience what you hope to achieve, encouraging them to listen to the end for the payout. 

Writing the middle of a speech

The body of your speech is the most information-dense section. Facts, visual aids, PowerPoints — all this information meets an audience with a waning attention span. Sticking to the speech structure gives your message focus and keeps you from going off track, making everything you say as useful as possible.

Limit the middle of your speech to three points, and support them with no more than three explanations. Following this model organizes your thoughts and prevents you from offering more information than the audience can retain. 

Using this section of the speech to make your presentation interactive can add interest and engage your audience. Try including a video or demonstration to break the monotony. A quick poll or survey also keeps the audience on their toes. 

Wrapping the speech up

To you, restating your points at the end can feel repetitive and dull. You’ve practiced countless times and heard it all before. But repetition aids memory and learning , helping your audience retain what you’ve told them. Use your speech’s conclusion to summarize the main points with a few short sentences.

Try to end on a memorable note, like posing a motivational quote or a thoughtful question the audience can contemplate once they leave. In proposal or pitch-style speeches, consider landing on a call to action (CTA) that invites your audience to take the next step.

How to write a good speech

If public speaking gives you the jitters, you’re not alone. Roughly 80% of the population feels nervous before giving a speech, and another 10% percent experiences intense anxiety and sometimes even panic. 

The fear of failure can cause procrastination and can cause you to put off your speechwriting process until the last minute. Finding the right words takes time and preparation, and if you’re already feeling nervous, starting from a blank page might seem even harder.

But putting in the effort despite your stress is worth it. Presenting a speech you worked hard on fosters authenticity and connects you to the subject matter, which can help your audience understand your points better. Human connection is all about honesty and vulnerability, and if you want to connect to the people you’re speaking to, they should see that in you.

1. Identify your objectives and target audience

Before diving into the writing process, find healthy coping strategies to help you stop worrying . Then you can define your speech’s purpose, think about your target audience, and start identifying your objectives. Here are some questions to ask yourself and ground your thinking : 

• What purpose do I want my speech to achieve? 
• What would it mean to me if I achieved the speech’s purpose?
• What audience am I writing for? 
• What do I know about my audience? 
• What values do I want to transmit? 
• If the audience remembers one take-home message, what should it be? 
• What do I want my audience to feel, think, or do after I finish speaking? 
• What parts of my message could be confusing and require further explanation?

2. Know your audience

Understanding your audience is crucial for tailoring your speech effectively. Consider the demographics of your audience, their interests, and their expectations. For instance, if you're addressing a group of healthcare professionals, you'll want to use medical terminology and data that resonate with them. Conversely, if your audience is a group of young students, you'd adjust your content to be more relatable to their experiences and interests. 

3. Choose a clear message

Your message should be the central idea that you want your audience to take away from your speech. Let's say you're giving a speech on climate change. Your clear message might be something like, "Individual actions can make a significant impact on mitigating climate change." Throughout your speech, all your points and examples should support this central message, reinforcing it for your audience.

4. Structure your speech

Organizing your speech properly keeps your audience engaged and helps them follow your ideas. The introduction should grab your audience's attention and introduce the topic. For example, if you're discussing space exploration, you could start with a fascinating fact about a recent space mission. In the body, you'd present your main points logically, such as the history of space exploration, its scientific significance, and future prospects. Finally, in the conclusion, you'd summarize your key points and reiterate the importance of space exploration in advancing human knowledge.

5. Use engaging content for clarity

Engaging content includes stories, anecdotes, statistics, and examples that illustrate your main points. For instance, if you're giving a speech about the importance of reading, you might share a personal story about how a particular book changed your perspective. You could also include statistics on the benefits of reading, such as improved cognitive abilities and empathy.

6. Maintain clarity and simplicity

It's essential to communicate your ideas clearly. Avoid using overly technical jargon or complex language that might confuse your audience. For example, if you're discussing a medical breakthrough with a non-medical audience, explain complex terms in simple, understandable language.

7. Practice and rehearse

Practice is key to delivering a great speech. Rehearse multiple times to refine your delivery, timing, and tone. Consider using a mirror or recording yourself to observe your body language and gestures. For instance, if you're giving a motivational speech, practice your gestures and expressions to convey enthusiasm and confidence.

8. Consider nonverbal communication

Your body language, tone of voice, and gestures should align with your message . If you're delivering a speech on leadership, maintain strong eye contact to convey authority and connection with your audience. A steady pace and varied tone can also enhance your speech's impact.

9. Engage your audience

Engaging your audience keeps them interested and attentive. Encourage interaction by asking thought-provoking questions or sharing relatable anecdotes. If you're giving a speech on teamwork, ask the audience to recall a time when teamwork led to a successful outcome, fostering engagement and connection.

10. Prepare for Q&A

Anticipate potential questions or objections your audience might have and prepare concise, well-informed responses. If you're delivering a speech on a controversial topic, such as healthcare reform, be ready to address common concerns, like the impact on healthcare costs or access to services, during the Q&A session.

By following these steps and incorporating examples that align with your specific speech topic and purpose, you can craft and deliver a compelling and impactful speech that resonates with your audience.

Tools for writing a great speech

There are several helpful tools available for speechwriting, both technological and communication-related. Here are a few examples:

• Word processing software: Tools like Microsoft Word, Google Docs, or other word processors provide a user-friendly environment for writing and editing speeches. They offer features like spell-checking, grammar correction, formatting options, and easy revision tracking.
• Presentation software: Software such as Microsoft PowerPoint or Google Slides is useful when creating visual aids to accompany your speech. These tools allow you to create engaging slideshows with text, images, charts, and videos to enhance your presentation.
• Speechwriting Templates: Online platforms or software offer pre-designed templates specifically for speechwriting. These templates provide guidance on structuring your speech and may include prompts for different sections like introductions, main points, and conclusions.
• Rhetorical devices and figures of speech: Rhetorical tools such as metaphors, similes, alliteration, and parallelism can add impact and persuasion to your speech. Resources like books, websites, or academic papers detailing various rhetorical devices can help you incorporate them effectively.
• Speechwriting apps: Mobile apps designed specifically for speechwriting can be helpful in organizing your thoughts, creating outlines, and composing a speech. These apps often provide features like voice recording, note-taking, and virtual prompts to keep you on track.
• Grammar and style checkers: Online tools or plugins like Grammarly or Hemingway Editor help improve the clarity and readability of your speech by checking for grammar, spelling, and style errors. They provide suggestions for sentence structure, word choice, and overall tone.
• Thesaurus and dictionary: Online or offline resources such as thesauruses and dictionaries help expand your vocabulary and find alternative words or phrases to express your ideas more effectively. They can also clarify meanings or provide context for unfamiliar terms.
• Online speechwriting communities: Joining online forums or communities focused on speechwriting can be beneficial for getting feedback, sharing ideas, and learning from experienced speechwriters. It's an opportunity to connect with like-minded individuals and improve your public speaking skills through collaboration.

Remember, while these tools can assist in the speechwriting process, it's essential to use them thoughtfully and adapt them to your specific needs and style. The most important aspect of speechwriting remains the creativity, authenticity, and connection with your audience that you bring to your speech.

5 tips for writing a speech

Behind every great speech is an excellent idea and a speaker who refined it. But a successful speech is about more than the initial words on the page, and there are a few more things you can do to help it land.

Here are five more tips for writing and practicing your speech:

1. Structure first, write second

If you start the writing process before organizing your thoughts, you may have to re-order, cut, and scrap the sentences you worked hard on. Save yourself some time by using a speech structure, like the one above, to order your talking points first. This can also help you identify unclear points or moments that disrupt your flow.

2. Do your homework

Data strengthens your argument with a scientific edge. Research your topic with an eye for attention-grabbing statistics, or look for findings you can use to support each point. If you’re pitching a product or service, pull information from company metrics that demonstrate past or potential successes. 

Audience members will likely have questions, so learn all talking points inside and out. If you tell investors that your product will provide 12% returns, for example, come prepared with projections that support that statement.

3. Sound like yourself

Memorable speakers have distinct voices. Think of Martin Luther King Jr’s urgent, inspiring timbre or Oprah’s empathetic, personal tone . Establish your voice — one that aligns with your personality and values — and stick with it. If you’re a motivational speaker, keep your tone upbeat to inspire your audience . If you’re the CEO of a startup, try sounding assured but approachable. 

4. Practice

As you practice a speech, you become more confident , gain a better handle on the material, and learn the outline so well that unexpected questions are less likely to trip you up. Practice in front of a colleague or friend for honest feedback about what you could change, and speak in front of the mirror to tweak your nonverbal communication and body language .

5. Remember to breathe

When you’re stressed, you breathe more rapidly . It can be challenging to talk normally when you can’t regulate your breath. Before your presentation, try some mindful breathing exercises so that when the day comes, you already have strategies that will calm you down and remain present . This can also help you control your voice and avoid speaking too quickly.

How to ghostwrite a great speech for someone else

Ghostwriting a speech requires a unique set of skills, as you're essentially writing a piece that will be delivered by someone else. Here are some tips on how to effectively ghostwrite a speech:

• Understand the speaker's voice and style : Begin by thoroughly understanding the speaker's personality, speaking style, and preferences. This includes their tone, humor, and any personal anecdotes they may want to include.
• Interview the speaker : Have a detailed conversation with the speaker to gather information about their speech's purpose, target audience, key messages, and any specific points they want to emphasize. Ask for personal stories or examples they may want to include.
• Research thoroughly : Research the topic to ensure you have a strong foundation of knowledge. This helps you craft a well-informed and credible speech.
• Create an outline : Develop a clear outline that includes the introduction, main points, supporting evidence, and a conclusion. Share this outline with the speaker for their input and approval.
• Write in the speaker's voice : While crafting the speech, maintain the speaker's voice and style. Use language and phrasing that feel natural to them. If they have a particular way of expressing ideas, incorporate that into the speech.
• Craft a captivating opening : Begin the speech with a compelling opening that grabs the audience's attention. This could be a relevant quote, an interesting fact, a personal anecdote, or a thought-provoking question.
• Organize content logically : Ensure the speech flows logically, with each point building on the previous one. Use transitions to guide the audience from one idea to the next smoothly.
• Incorporate engaging stories and examples : Include anecdotes, stories, and real-life examples that illustrate key points and make the speech relatable and memorable.
• Edit and revise : Edit the speech carefully for clarity, grammar, and coherence. Ensure the speech is the right length and aligns with the speaker's time constraints.
• Seek feedback : Share drafts of the speech with the speaker for their feedback and revisions. They may have specific changes or additions they'd like to make.
• Practice delivery : If possible, work with the speaker on their delivery. Practice the speech together, allowing the speaker to become familiar with the content and your writing style.
• Maintain confidentiality : As a ghostwriter, it's essential to respect the confidentiality and anonymity of the work. Do not disclose that you wrote the speech unless you have the speaker's permission to do so.
• Be flexible : Be open to making changes and revisions as per the speaker's preferences. Your goal is to make them look good and effectively convey their message.
• Meet deadlines : Stick to agreed-upon deadlines for drafts and revisions. Punctuality and reliability are essential in ghostwriting.
• Provide support : Support the speaker during their preparation and rehearsal process. This can include helping with cue cards, speech notes, or any other materials they need.

Remember that successful ghostwriting is about capturing the essence of the speaker while delivering a well-structured and engaging speech. Collaboration, communication, and adaptability are key to achieving this.

Give your best speech yet

Learn how to make a speech that’ll hold an audience’s attention by structuring your thoughts and practicing frequently. Put the effort into writing and preparing your content, and aim to improve your breathing, eye contact , and body language as you practice. The more you work on your speech, the more confident you’ll become.

The energy you invest in writing an effective speech will help your audience remember and connect to every concept. Remember: some life-changing philosophies have come from good speeches, so give your words a chance to resonate with others. You might even change their thinking.

Boost your speech skills

Enhance your public speaking with personalized coaching tailored to your needs

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

6 presentation skills and how to improve them

How to be more persuasive: 6 tips for convincing others, self-management skills for a messy world, what are analytical skills examples and how to level up, why you need an accountability partner (and how to find one), learn types of gestures and their meanings to improve your communication, 10 examples of principles that can guide your approach to work, 9 high-income skills to learn in 2024, the 11 tips that will improve your public speaking skills, similar articles, how to write an executive summary in 10 steps, 18 effective strategies to improve your communication skills, how to pitch ideas: 8 tips to captivate any audience, your guide to what storytelling is and how to be a good storyteller, how to give a good presentation that captivates any audience, writing an elevator pitch about yourself: a how-to plus tips, how to make a presentation interactive and exciting, how to write a memo: 8 steps with examples, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Places on our 2024 summer school are filling fast. Don’t miss out. Enrol now to avoid disappointment

• 9 Ways to Construct a Compelling Argument

You might also enjoy…

• How to Write with Evidence in a Time of Fake News
• 4 Ridiculous Things Actually Suggested in Parliament

But especially in the circumstances that we’re deeply convinced of the rightness of our points, putting them across in a compelling way that will change other people’s mind is a challenge. If you feel that your opinion is obviously right, it’s hard work even to understand why other people might disagree. Some people reach this point and don’t bother to try, instead concluding that those who disagree with them must be stupid, misled or just plain immoral. And it’s almost impossible to construct an argument that will persuade someone if you’re starting from the perspective that they’re either dim or evil. In the opposite set of circumstances – when you only weakly believe your perspective to be right – it can also be tricky to construct a good argument. In the absence of conviction, arguments tend to lack coherence or force. In this article, we take a look at how you can put together an argument, whether for an essay, debate speech or social media post, that is forceful, cogent and – if you’re lucky – might just change someone’s mind.

1. Keep it simple

Almost all good essays focus on a single powerful idea, drawing in every point made back to that same idea so that even someone skim-reading will soon pick up the author’s thesis. But when you care passionately about something, it’s easy to let this go. If you can see twenty different reasons why you’re right, it’s tempting to put all of them into your argument, because it feels as if the sheer weight of twenty reasons will be much more persuasive than just focusing on one or two; after all, someone may be able rebut a couple of reasons, but can they rebut all twenty? Yet from the outside, an argument with endless different reasons is much less persuasive than one with focus and precision on a small number of reasons. The debate in the UK about whether or not to stay in the EU was a great example of this. The Remain campaign had dozens of different reasons. Car manufacturing! Overfishing! Cleaner beaches! Key workers for the NHS! Medical research links! Economic opportunities! The difficulty of overcoming trade barriers! The Northern Irish border! Meanwhile, the Leave campaign boiled their argument down to just one: membership of the EU means relinquishing control. Leaving it means taking back control. And despite most expectations and the advice of most experts, the simple, straightforward message won. Voters struggled to remember the many different messages put out by the Remain campaign, as compelling as each of those reasons might have been; but they remembered the message about taking back control.

2. Be fair on your opponent

One of the most commonly used rhetorical fallacies is the Strawman Fallacy. This involves constructing a version of your opponent’s argument that is much weaker than the arguments they might use themselves, in order than you can defeat it more easily. For instance, in the area of crime and punishment, you might be arguing in favour of harsher prison sentences, while your opponent argues in favour of early release where possible. A Strawman would be to say that your opponent is weak on crime, wanting violent criminals to be let out on to the streets without adequate punishment or deterrence, to commit the same crimes again. In reality, your opponent’s idea might exclude violent criminals, and focus on community-based restorative justice that could lead to lower rates of recidivism. To anyone who knows the topic well, if your argument includes a Strawman, then you will immediately have lost credibility by demonstrating that either you don’t really understand the opposing point of view, or that you simply don’t care about rebutting it properly. Neither is persuasive. Instead, you should be fair to your opponent and represent their argument honestly, and your readers will take you seriously as a result

3. Avoid other common fallacies

It’s worth taking the time to read about logical fallacies and making sure that you’re not making them, as argument that rest of fallacious foundations can be more easily demolished. (This may not apply on social media, but it does in formal debating and in writing essays). Some fallacies are straightforward to understand, such as the appeal to popularity (roughly “everyone agrees with me, so I must be right!”), but others are a little trickier. Take “begging the question”, which is often misunderstood. It gets used to mean “raises the question” (e.g. “this politician has defended terrorists, which raises the question – can we trust her?”), but the fallacy it refers to is a bit more complicated. It’s when an argument rests on the assumption that its conclusions are true. For example, someone might argue that fizzy drinks shouldn’t be banned in schools, on the grounds that they’re not bad for students’ health. How can we know that they’re not bad for students’ health? Why, if they were, they would be banned in schools! When put in a condensed form like this example, the flaw in this approach is obvious, but you can imagine how you might fall for it over the course of a whole essay – for instance, paragraphs arguing that teachers would have objected to hyperactive students, parents would have complained, and we can see that none of this has happened because they haven’t yet been banned. With more verbosity, a bad argument can be hidden, so check that you’re not falling prey to it in your own writing.

4. Make your assumptions clear

Every argument rests on assumptions. Some of these assumptions are so obvious that you’re not going to be aware that you’re making them – for instance, you might make an argument about different economic systems that rests on the assumption that reducing global poverty is a good thing. While very few people would disagree with you on that, in general, if your assumption can be proven false, then the entire basis of your argument is undermined. A more controversial example might be an argument that rests on the assumption that everyone can trust the police force – for instance, if you’re arguing for tougher enforcement of minor offences in order to prevent them from mounting into major ones. But in countries where the police are frequently bribed, or where policing has obvious biases, such enforcement could be counterproductive. If you’re aware of such assumptions underpinning your argument, tackle them head on by making them clear and explaining why they are valid; so you could argue that your law enforcement proposal is valid in the particular circumstances that you’re suggesting because the police force there can be relied on, even if it wouldn’t work everywhere.

5. Rest your argument on solid foundations

If you think that you’re right in your argument, you should also be able to assemble a good amount of evidence that you’re right. That means putting the effort in and finding something that genuinely backs up what you’re saying; don’t fall back on dubious statistics or fake news . Doing the research to ensure that your evidence is solid can be time-consuming, but it’s worthwhile, as then you’ve removed another basis on which your argument could be challenged. What happens if you can’t find any evidence for your argument? The first thing to consider is whether you might be wrong! If you find lots of evidence against your position, and minimal evidence for it, it would be logical to change your mind. But if you’re struggling to find evidence either way, it may simply be that the area is under-researched. Prove what you can, including your assumptions, and work from there.

6. Use evidence your readers will believe

So far we’ve focused on how to construct an argument that is solid and hard to challenge; from this point onward, we focus on what it takes to make an argument persuasive. One thing you can do is to choose your evidence with your audience in mind. For instance, if you’re writing about current affairs, a left-wing audience will find an article from the Guardian to be more persuasive (as they’re more likely to trust its reporting), while a right-wing audience might be more swayed by the Telegraph. This principle doesn’t just hold in terms of politics. It can also be useful in terms of sides in an academic debate, for instance. You can similarly bear in mind the demographics of your likely audience – it may be that an older audience is more skeptical of footnotes that consist solely of web addresses. And it isn’t just about statistics and references. The focus of your evidence as a whole can take your probable audience into account; for example, if you were arguing that a particular drug should be banned on health grounds and your main audience was teenagers, you might want to focus more on the immediate health risks, rather than ones that might only appear years or decades later.

7. Avoid platitudes and generalisations, and be specific

A platitude is a phrase used to the point of meaninglessness – and it may not have had that much meaning to begin with. If you find yourself writing something like “because family life is all-important” to support one of your claims, you’ve slipped into using platitudes. Platitudes are likely to annoy your readers without helping to persuade them. Because they’re meaningless and uncontroversial statements, using them doesn’t tell your reader anything new. If you say that working hours need to be restricted because family ought to come first, you haven’t really given your reader any new information. Instead, bring the importance of family to life for your reader, and then explain just how long hours are interrupting it. Similarly, being specific can demonstrate the grasp you have on your subject, and can bring it to life for your reader. Imagine that you were arguing in favour of nationalising the railways, and one of your points was that the service now was of low quality. Saying “many commuter trains are frequently delayed” is much less impactful than if you have the full facts to hand, e.g. “in Letchworth Garden City, one key commuter hub, half of all peak-time trains to London were delayed by ten minutes or more.”

8. Understand the opposing point of view

As we noted in the introduction, you can’t construct a compelling argument unless you understand why someone might think you were wrong, and you can come up with reasons other than them being mistaken or stupid. After all, we almost all target them same end goals, whether that’s wanting to increase our understanding of the world in academia, or increase people’s opportunities to flourish and seek happiness in politics. Yet we come to divergent conclusions. In his book The Righteous Mind , Jonathan Haidt explores the different perspectives of people who are politically right or left-wing. He summarises the different ideals people might value, namely justice, equality, authority, sanctity and loyalty, and concludes that while most people see that these things have some value, different political persuasions value them to different degrees. For instance, someone who opposes equal marriage might argue that they don’t oppose equality – but they do feel that on balance, sanctity is more important. An argument that focuses solely on equality won’t sway them, but an argument that addresses sanctity might.

9. Make it easy for your opponent to change their mind

It’s tricky to think of the last time you changed your mind about something really important. Perhaps to preserve our pride, we frequently forget that we ever believed something different. This survey of British voters’ attitudes to the Iraq war demonstrates the point beautifully. 54% of people supporting invading Iraq in 2003; but twelve years on, with the war a demonstrable failure, only 37% were still willing to admit that they had supported it at the time. The effect in the USA was even more dramatic. It would be tempting for anyone who genuinely did oppose the war at the time to be quite smug towards anyone who changed their mind, especially those who won’t admit it. But if changing your mind comes with additional consequences (e.g. the implication that you were daft ever to have believed something, even if you’ve since come to a different conclusion), then the incentive to do so is reduced. Your argument needs to avoid vilifying people who have only recently come around to your point of view; instead, to be truly persuasive, you should welcome them.

Images: pink post it hand ; megaphone girl ; pencil shavings ; meeting ; hand writing ;  boxers ; pink trainers;  tools ; magnifying glass ; bridge ; thinking girl ; puzzle hands  

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

10 Developing Strong Arguments

Josh miller, university of wisconsin-milwaukee, learning objectives.

• Understand the principles of argumentation.
• Identify the parts of an argument.
• Understand the different types of arguments, and how to make an effective argument.
• Explain the techniques for creating and the benefits of having counter arguments.

When you think of the word argument, you might also think of intense shouting matches where one person attempts to yell louder than the other person. You might imagine someone’s feelings getting hurt or relationships falling apart. Or, perhaps a scene emerges in your mind where one friend decides to stop speaking with another friend after an altercation. You might even think of physical violence. In general, people tend to have a negative impression about arguing, thinking that arguments are destructive and harmful. We want to avoid arguments. This chapter, however, takes a different approach to argument. As you will learn in this chapter, effective public speeches develop around arguments, and arguments do not need to be considered harmful things to be avoided. Instead, someone engaged in an argument gives logical reasons to other people—reasons that might enable those people to change their own minds about a particular topic or issue.

This chapter will first equip you with some basic principles for understanding the importance of arguments in public speaking. Based on those principles, you will learn why speeches must have arguments and how to determine the success of an argument. Then, you will learn about the basic structure of an argument, so you have the tools to develop compelling arguments. The chapter will also discuss several types of arguments that you can make, and it will warn you several types of argumentative strategies that you will want to avoid. You will also learn about the significance of knowing what other people might think about your topic and why it is important to address other people’s potential concerns with your topic in your speech itself.

Principles of Argumentation

Before we examine the structure of an argument, it might be helpful to first cover some essential principles of argumentation. These principles help us to be better equipped to answer the following questions: why do we argue? What is argumentation and what is an argument? How do I know that I have made a successful argument? There are four principles in total: (1) argumentation solves problems, (2) argumentation involves uncertainty, (3) arguments are a process and a product, and (4) success is determined by the audience.

Principle #1: Argumentation as Solutions to Problems

Why do we make arguments and why do we engage in argumentation? At the most basic level, we engage in arguments to solve problems. In your local community, you might believe that the roads are littered with too many potholes, so you decide to convince your neighbors and your local city council to raise taxes to fix all of those potholes. To convince your neighbors and city council members to make the change, you need to engage in argumentation. In other words, you need to give your audience, members of your local city council and neighbors, good reasons as to why they should make a change and taxes should be increased. What distinguishes argumentation from other ways to solve problems is that arguers will use evidence and logical reasoning to convince others that there is a problem and that they know the best way to fix the problem. [i] In public speaking, argumentation is not a zero-sum game where there is a clear winner and loser because the goal of argumentation is connection and problem-solving. In short, arguments are used to inspire action and solutions to fix problems.

Principle #2: Argumentation involves Uncertainty

Arguments are necessary when there is uncertainty about what people can do or should do at some point in the future. Arguments work to reduce that uncertainty. When we face a problem in our daily lives, in our communities, or as a nation, we have many different options about what we can do. Some might not even recognize or believe that a problem is occurring and thus believe that we do not need to do anything. Some people might believe that one possible solution is better than the other solutions, and some might disagree with that assessment. Moreover, we generally need to decide how to respond to the problem with limited information, and we can never be certain what the proper course of action entails. If the solution were obvious, we would not need to make arguments to convince others of the best course of action. When we face problems, we can try to agree on the best course of action by giving each other reasons why we should prefer one action over another. Because of the uncertainty inherent in argumentation, arguments require people to take “inferential leaps” or leaps of faith. People make these leaps of faith because they believe that a strong rationale exists for believing in one point of view over another. [ii]

Principle #3: Arguments as Products/Process

We can understand arguments as being both a product and a process. To view an argument as a product is to understand that an argument is something that is made and has a structure. As a public speaker, you will make an argument to convince someone to agree with your point of view. You will give evidence and use that evidence to make an argument about why your point of view is correct. However, arguments are something that you will also have with other people. Arguments do not occur in a vacuum. So, to view argument as a process means to understand that arguments happen in interactions with others. Through that process, you might tell your audience why you believe your evidence justifies a particular position over another, but your audience members might also tell you why they think their point of view is superior to others. Throughout that interaction and exchange of ideas and evidence, hopefully, you and your fellow arguers will arrive and agree upon the best course of action.

In order for the process of argumentation to work, both you and your audience members have to be open to persuasion. This openness is known as the principle of reciprocity . True argumentation can only occur if both you and your audience are open to being persuaded and willing to admit that you may be wrong. [iii] You and your audience members have to be willing to examine the evidence and be willing to compromise. That is, engagement with others is necessary for productive argumentation. [iv] Otherwise, even though you might be exchanging points of view and evidence supporting those points of view, both you and your audience members will not be able to arrive at a collective course of action that will solve the problems you face. In short, arguments are things that we make (produce), but arguments are also things that we do with others (process).

The principle of reciprocity is when both you and your audience members are open to persuasion.

Principle #4: Success is Determine by Your Audience

Being correct is not the same thing as having a strong or successful argument. Success is based on earning agreement of your audience. When we argue, it is because we want others to share our point of view and act with us to solve a problem. Ultimately, it is up to our audience to decide if they want to agree with our point of view and act collectively with us. So, even if we are confident that we are correct in what we believe, we cannot consider our arguments to be successful until we convince others to agree with our point of view. The process of earning agreement from your audience can be long and difficult. However, merely repeating what you believe to be correct will not foster a successful argument. It is not until you realize that your audience determines whether or not your argument is correct that you can begin to work to earn that agreement. As such, creating a successful argument often takes time, effort, research, and a willingness to engage with ideas and beliefs with which you disagree.

Now that we have covered some of the basic principles of argumentation, let us examine the parts of an argument. Knowing the parts of every argument will help you recognize whether or not you are crafting an effective argument for your speech.

The Parts of an Argument

A well-structured argument contains at least three parts: the claim, the data, and the reasoning. The claim is the initial statement with which you would like your audience to agree. The data is the supporting material and evidence that you present to your audience that you believe shows that your claim is accurate. The reasoning is the logical connection between your data and claim. In other words, the reasoning shows your audience why your data supports your claim. [i] For example, if you are attempting to convince your friend to go eat lunch with you at a local burger place, you might say “we should go to that burger place for lunch today.” You want your friend to agree with that statement, and it is thus your claim. Your friend might ask “why?” And, you might respond by stating “it has the best fries.” This statement is your data because it is the supporting material that you provided to your friend to prove that your claim (“we should go to the burger place”) is correct. Your reasoning is the logical connection between your claim and the data. In this case, your reasoning might be that “restaurants that have the best fries are the best places to eat.” This statement connects your data (that the burger place has the best fries) to your claim (that you should eat at the burger place). Thus, your complete argument: “Places that have the best fries are the best places to eat lunch. So, we should eat at the burger place, because they have the best fries.” This statement includes your claim, data, and reasoning.

In everyday conversation, speakers do not always explicitly state the reasoning of the argument. When you talk to your friends about where to eat lunch, you might only say “we should eat at the burger place, because they have great fries.” If you ever said this statement, you would have only explicitly stated the claim and data. The reasoning is implied, and you would have assumed that your friends would understand the logical connection between having good fries and going to a place to eat. Based on this example, we might infer that not everyone will explicitly state their reasoning. However, for your argument to be effective, your audience needs to understand and agree with the logical connection between your claim and data. As such, if you do not state the reasoning explicitly, you must be confident that the logical connection is obvious enough that your audience will understand what it is. To be on the safe side, you should be as explicit as possible about how your data supports your claim in your speech, especially if your argument is complex or new to your audience. Remember that without a clear connection between your data and claim your argument will fall flat.

The claim is the intial statement with which you would like your audience to agree.

The data is the supporting material and evidence that you present to your audience that you believe shows that your claim is accurate.

The reasoning is the logical connection between your data and claim.

The basic structure of an argument includes a claim, data, and reasoning. To know how to develop as many diverse arguments as possible, it is helpful to know about the many different ways the reasoning process works in an argument. Let’s examine the different types of argument.

Try It: “Because” Test

Strong data is critical to developing strong arguments. To ensure that you include evidence in every argument, use the “because” test. The word because usually signals that a clause in your sentence will contain data supporting the other clause in the sentence. As such, one way to identify your claim and data is to add the word “because.” Examine the topic sentence of each paragraph (or main point) of your speech. If those sentences do not contain the word “because,” try to rewrite them to include the word “because.” If you cannot, then it is likely that your sentence needs data to support your claim and be a complete argument. Think of the burger place example once again. In this hypothetical, if your sentence was only “we should go to the burger place,” you will notice that you cannot rewrite this sentence to include the word “because.” As such, this sentence is only the claim. However, if your statement was “The burger place has great fries. We should go to it.” You can rewrite that statement as “we should go to the burger place because it has great fries.” This statement includes both the claim (“we should go to the burger place”) and data (“it has great fries”); the “because” in the sentence signals a connection between the claim and data.

Types of Arguments

Understanding different reasoning patterns can help you construct better arguments.  We will examine six ways you might reason as you develop and articulate an argument: (1) arguments by induction, (2) arguments from deduction, (3) arguments of cause, (4) arguments by analogy, (5) arguments by sign, and (6) arguments from authority.

Arguments from Induction

When arguing by induction , speakers take specific instances of an occurrence and generalize to a general principle based on their observation of those specific instances. [i] This process of going from specific instances and information to generalizing is also called developing an argument from example. During election seasons, pollsters use reasoning by example to make arguments about which candidate the general population prefers or wants to vote for at a given time. Pollsters ask a sample number of people to determine what they are thinking about the election. Based on the results from that sample, pollsters generalize and draw conclusions about what the general population thinks about the election and the candidates.

When developing an argument from example, your data is a specific instance of a larger phenomenon. You might use your personal experience to make your generalization. For example, if you are giving a speech about the need for public libraries, you can use your personal experience of using the public library to use the internet, check out a book, or have a quiet place to work. Based on your personal experience (your data) of needing to use the library, you generalize (your reasoning) to make the argument that libraries are an essential facet of your community (your claim). Other types of data that might be relevant to an argument from example include testimonies of other and statistics. For instance, if you want to argue that the economy of your state is doing poorly, you might find statistics that three of the largest cities in the state have growing unemployment and have a shrinking economy. Based on those three statistics (your data), you generalize (your reasoning) to conclude that the economy in the entire state is likely weaker than it should be (your claim).

If you decide to use inductive reasoning in your speech, you should ask yourself the following questions: (1) Do I have enough examples to support the generalization? (2) Will my audience members find my examples typical and representative? [ii] Your argument from example may not be persuasive without enough examples to support your conclusion. For instance, if you are giving a speech about funding for libraries and you tell your audience that you use the libraries, your audience will not accept your generalization that the library is important because many people use it. Instead, you could provide your audience with a statistic stating the total number of people that use the libraries to generalize that many people use them. Arguments from example also fail when the examples are outliers or isolated instances. You may not like chocolate cake, but that does not mean that we can then conclude that most people dislike chocolate cake.

Arguments from Deduction

Whereas reasoning by example involves moving from specific instances to a general principle, when using deductive reasoning , speakers take a general principle and apply that principle to a specific case. For example, if you have evidence proving that in general students who attend a preschool do better in their K-12 education than students who do not, you might make an argument that your child should attend preschool so they can do better in their K-12 education. In this example, your claim would be that “my child should attend preschool.” Your data is the study you found saying, attending preschool correlates with more success in K-12 education. The reasoning that connects the data and claim is the belief that what is generally true for other children will be true for your child. When you make an argument that starts with a general principle and then apply that principle to a specific example, you are reasoning by deduction.

Data that supports an argument from deduction can include both facts and values derived from expert testimony, statistics, and revered documents. For example, when Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, he cited two revered documents: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. On that hot summer’s day in 1963, King exclaimed:

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” [iii]

The argument that King develops in this passage is one based on deduction. King starts with the data that the Declaration of Independence proclaims that all people are created equal. King then applies the general value principle established by the Declaration of Independence to the issue of racial segregation. When he does that, he can conclude that all races should be treated equally under the law and granted the guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because the Declaration of Independence generally concludes that all people are created equal (data), King argues that in the specific instance (reasoning) of racial segregation that the law should treat all races equally (claim).

When developing an argument from deduction, you need to be confident that the general principle on which you base your argument is accurate and that your audience will believe that it is accurate. If you do not believe that your audience will agree with the general principle, then you would want to include additional evidence justifying that the general principle is accurate before you apply that general principle to a specific situation.

Arguments of Cause

Arguments based on causal reasoning attempt to establish a cause and effect relationship between two items. So, based on an assumption about a relationship between the two items, your argument predicts that something will occur based on the data that you have. That is, you believe that one of the items influences the other items in some way. For instance, if a friend noticed you studying three hours a day for a whole week, that friend might make the following prediction: “you are going to do well on your exam because you have been putting in so many hours of studying.” In this example, your friend’s claim is that you will do well on the exam. The data is your friend’s observation of all of the studying that you have been doing. The reasoning in this argument is that a cause and effect relationship exists between studying and doing well on an exam. When speakers and audiences believe that one thing causes the other thing, they assume that the observation of one of the things allows us to predict that the other thing will occur.

Another example of reasoning by cause would be the argument that “you should stop smoking, so you do not develop lung disease.” In this argument, the claim would be “you should stop smoking.” The speaker making this argument would be using causal reasoning because the argument assumes that a causal relationship between smoking and lung disease exists. The argument assumes that smoking does cause lung disease. To strengthen arguments by cause, you should clearly articulate evidence that supports the cause and effect relationship between the two items. In the instance of the smoking example, citing evidence that establishes the connection between smoking and lung cancer would make the causal argument stronger. Moreover, strong arguments by cause usually include an explanation about how one item influences the other item. For instance, in the example about smoking, saying that smoking damages lung cells which increases the likelihood of lung disease explains to the audience how smoking and lung disease are connected.

Causal arguments fail when they are based on correlation rather than causation. Correlation means that two things tend to happen at the same time—they have a connection. However, in a correlation one thing does not cause the other thing. For example, we may notice that college debt is increasing in the United States, and we may also notice that over the same period of time smoking has been decreasing in the United States. However, we cannot conclude that if more people smoked cigarettes, college debt would decrease. When two things happen at the same time, it does not prove that one causes the other.

Arguments by Analogy

Arguments by analogy assume that if two items are alike in some respects, then they will be alike in other respects. As such, reasoning by analogy connects evidence to the claim by comparing to items. [iv] Take the following argument for example: “Sweden’s health care system dramatically reduced health care costs in five years. Thus, the United States should follow Sweden’s lead and adopt a similar healthcare system.” In this example, the claim is that the United States should adopt a health care system that is similar to Sweden’s. The data is a report that Sweden’s health care costs were reduced in five years. The reasoning connects the claim and data together. In this case, the reasoning is that because the United States and Sweden are comparable countries, what worked in Sweden should work in the United States. This type of reasoning relies on the belief that the two items (in this example, Sweden and the United States) are actually comparable in ways that are relevant to the argument. If members of the audience think that one cannot make a comparison between the two countries, then the reasoning process (and the argument) fails.

Remember that when you reason by analogy, the two objects that you are comparing need to be similar and your audience needs to understand their similarities. The similarities also need to be relevant to your argument. If the two objects that you are comparing seem dissimilar, then it will be more difficult for you to convince your audience to take the “leap of faith” and accept your claim.

Arguments by Sign

When a speaker makes an argument that uses reasoning by sign , the speaker assumes that the observation of one item shows that another item is occurring. Reasoning by sign then allows us to infer the presence of something, even if that thing cannot be physically observed. One of the most common arguments based on sign is the following: “I see smoke. There must be a fire.” Even though the speaker does not see fire, the speaker reasons that the presence of smoke must mean that there is a fire. If we were to break that argument into its parts, we would say the claim is that there is fire. The data is the physical observation of smoke. The reasoning process would be that “smoke is a sign of fire.”

Reasoning by sign is distinct from reasoning by cause because reasoning by sign does not attempt to show a causal relationship between the two things. That is, when you are reasoning by sign, you are not saying that “smoke causes fire” but that “from our observation of smoke, we can assume the presence of fire.” If we were to use reasoning by cause, we might state that: “because fire causes smoke, if I start a fire, there will also be smoke.” In the example of reasoning by cause, we infer something will happen based on the occurrence of something else. In the example of reasoning by sign, we infer something is happening based on our observation of something else.

When reasoning by sign, you want to be careful to take into account alternative explanations of what might be happening. For example, if you walk outside in the morning and see a large puddle of water, you might assume that it recently rained. This assumption would be reasoning by sign because you assume that your observation of the puddle enables you to infer that rain occurred. However, other explanations might exist for why there is a large pool of water. For example, a fire hydrant might be broke nearby that is gushing water everywhere, or someone might have left on their garden hose. So, when you reason by sign, you need to take other possibilities into account and determine if your explanation is the best possible explanation for what occurred. [v]

Arguments from Authority

An argument from authority uses the expertise of someone as data to justify a claim as correct. This type of argument is one of the reasons it is important to cite qualified sources in your speech. The expertise of your sources justifies the arguments that you are making. Take the following argument: “Climate change is a real phenomenon because a vast majority of scientists indicate that it is real. In fact, in a peer-reviewed study, Doctor John Cook and his research team compiled scientific studies about climate change and found over 90% of scientists agree that the phenomenon is real.” [vi] In this argument, the claim is that climate change is real. The data is a study conducted by experts in the field stating that scientific consensus exists around the issue of climate change. The reasoning that connects the claim with the data is that what experts in their field indicate as true is likely to be true. When you reason by authority, you can either quote the authority figure or summarize the authority figure’s arguments. Regardless, you must also tell your audience who the authority figure is and why they are qualified to speak about the topic of your speech.

When developing an argument from authority, remember the following: first, you need to make sure that the person you are citing is an expert in the topic of your speech. Someone might have a doctorate in literature, but that does not mean that their testimony on a scientific process is authoritative. Conversely, someone who has a doctorate in chemistry might not have the most authoritative voice when it comes to a speech involving books that have historically been banned from public schools. Second, the strongest arguments from authority generally do not rely on only one person’s authority. Instead, they rely on the testimony of multiple sources all of which are qualified to speak on the matter of your speech. For example, if you want to make a claim about the effect of increased carbon dioxide emission on plant life, a stronger argument would cite multiple independent qualified sources rather than just one source. Lastly, always remember to cite your sources out loud in your speech. Because your argument relies on the credibility of the people you are citing, you need to make sure you tell your audience your sources’ qualifications.

Arguments and Multiple Types of Reasoning

Not every member of your audience will be persuaded by the same argument. Some people connect better with a clear example. Some people are more trusting of authority figures than others. Because of this, you will want to include several types of arguments in your speech. For example, if you wanted to convince your neighbors to increase taxes to reduce potholes, you might want to both include personal testimonies of people who say that they damaged their cars (reasoning by example) and evidence from car mechanics that detail how potholes can damage cars (reasoning by authority). When you include a few types of reasoning in your speech, the chance that at least one of your arguments will convince your audience of your thesis will increase. To strengthen your argument, you might use multiple pieces of evidence and reason in different ways to justify the same claim.

Additionally, you might cite evidence to support the reasoning process of an argument in your speech. Recall the example above about convincing someone to quit smoking. If you said, “you should quit smoking because you do not want to get cancer,” you would be reasoning by cause. Your claim is the person should quit smoking. The data is that it is bad to get cancer. The argument assumes a causal relationship between smoking and cancer. Thus, the argument reasons by cause. Now, imagine that you made the following argument: “you should quit smoking because you do not want to get cancer. According to a report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), smoking leads to lung cancer.” [vii] In this statement, you have provided evidence supporting the reasoning of your argument. Think of the second sentence “according to a report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), smoking leads to lung cancer” as a new argument. In this argument, the claim is that smoking leads to lung cancer which is the reasoning from the first sentence of the argument. The data for the second sentence is the CDC’s report. The reasoning that connects the claim and data is reasoning by authority because the argument assumes that what experts state as true is likely to be true. So, when you are constructing your arguments for your speech, if you ever think that the reasoning of your argument is unclear or might not convince others, you should find additional evidence to support the logical connection between your claim and data.

Inductive reasoning is when a speaker takes specific instances of occurrence and generalizes to a general principle based on their observation of those specific instances.

Deductive reasoning is when speakers take a general principle and apply that principle to a specific case.

Arguments based on causal reasoning attempt to establish a cause and effect relationship between two items.

Arguments by analogy assume that if two items are alike in some respects, then they will be alike in other respects.

When reasoning by sign , the speaker assumes that the observation of one item shows that another item is occurring.

An argument that reasons from authority uses the expertise of someone as data to justify a claim as correct.

Counter Arguments

Effective speakers recognize that their audience members’ points of view often differ from their own. As a speaker, you will, of course, attempt to prove that your point of view is the one that your audience should adopt. However, because audience members have their own points of view and beliefs about many issues, it is vital for you to brainstorm what those other beliefs and views about your topic might be and how you might address those beliefs in your speech. It might be easy to ignore divergent points of view, but doing so does a disservice to both your speech and your audience. As a speaker, you need to take other points of view into account as you develop your speech.

To ensure that you are considering other points of view, your speech should address potential counter arguments. Counter arguments are positions with which your audience might hold that contradict or oppose your arguments. [i] For example, if you were to give a speech in which you argue that taxes should be increased to maintain public libraries in your hometown, someone else might think “why would we do that? No one uses libraries anymore.” The belief that no one uses libraries anymore may challenge the main argument of your speech. Thus, it is a counter-argument to your speech.

It is important for you to remember that at least one counter argument will exist whenever you give a speech. If there are no counter arguments and everyone in the audience already agrees with your thesis, you would have no reason to deliver the speech. The best speakers, knowing there are likely to be counter arguments present whenever they speak, anticipate and respond to potential beliefs or positions that run contrary to their thesis. For instance, if you were delivering the speech mentioned above about increasing funding for libraries, you would want to tailor your speech to highlight why people might use libraries and provide data to support your claim. You might find reports that show people use libraries for internet access if they do not have internet at home, or you might also find newspaper articles that discuss summer reading program that libraries hold for children. You can then incorporate those pieces of evidence into your speech to address the counter-argument that people do not use libraries anymore. For instance, you might say something like this: “Some of you might think that not enough people use our public libraries to justify the increased expenditures, but a recent Pew Research Institute poll found that people still frequently use public libraries to check out books, take classes about how to use new technology, and use the internet to find jobs.” [ii] If you had delivered this statement, you would have referenced an opposing viewpoint (“not enough people use our public libraries to justify increased expenditures”), showing your audience that you are aware of potential positions that contradict your own. You also would have responded to the opposing position with evidence that shows your audience members why they do not need to be concerned about lack of library use.

You can also address counter arguments is by establishing a value hierarchy. A value hierarchy prioritizes certain values and beliefs over others while still affirming all of those values and beliefs. For example, imagine that you are involved in a debate with another person about whether or not the United States should adopt a counter-terrorism measure and increase surveillance on its citizens. One side might argue, “No, we should not increase surveillance because that undermines our freedom and right to privacy.” The other side might argue, “Yes, we should increase surveillance because that will make us safer from terror attacks.” Both sides have constructed their argument based on the need for preserving a particular value. One side wants to preserve freedom, and the other side wants to preserve safety. Both positions can establish a value hierarchy to respond to the other side’s argument. For example, the person who opposes the counter-terrorism measure might say, “Although our safety is important, we must remember that we are fighting to protect the principles and rights on which our country was founded, including the right to privacy. Give me liberty or give me death.” In this statement, the speaker values the opposing side’s safety concerns but also indicates that the right to privacy is more important than safety. So, although the speaker agrees that safety is important, the speaker concludes that the counter-terror measure should not be adopted based on another more important value. Yet, the speaker who supports the counter-terror measure might also attempt to establish a value hierarchy. That speaker might say, “You are correct that privacy is important. However, to truly enjoy the benefits of living in a free society, we must all feel that we are safe. Without a feeling of security, we will never benefit from the freedoms we have.” This speaker establishes a value hierarchy by suggesting the safety is necessary for freedom, which takes counter-argument of needing to preserve freedom into account and addresses it. Therefore, when you are constructing your speech, one way you can address counter-arguments is by considering related values and developing a value hierarchy.

In general, acknowledging counter arguments and responding to them makes you appear more credible to your audience members than if you simply ignored counter-argument. The first reason that this is the case is that addressing counter arguments makes you appear more knowledgeable about the topic and less biased. Explaining potential reasons that someone might disagree with your speech shows your audience that you did your research and tried to understand all sides of the issue as you developed your speech. Your knowledge enhances your credibility on a particular topic. Then, when you address the various sides of the issue, you show your audience that you took the time to consider other viewpoints and why your position is still the correct one. What this does is show your audience that you care about finding the correct solution to a problem, making you seem more trustworthy.

The second reason that you should address counter arguments is that audience members who agree with the counter argument will view you with skepticism if you fail to address their concerns. For example, if you attempt to get a vegetarian or someone who wants to eat healthy to join you for lunch at your local burger place, they are unlikely to be convinced by your argument that the burger place has really juicy burgers. The vegetarian would probably think “but I don’t eat meat. What is in it for me?” And, the person trying to eat healthily might think, “but don’t those have a thousand calories?” Neither one of these people would be convinced by your argument because you have not addressed the counter-arguments. Just stating the burger place has great burgers may make these members of your audience feel that you did not care about their beliefs and values or, in another sense, whether or not you actually convinced them to go to the burger place. Without taking into account your audience’s beliefs, it can be difficult for you to establish a connection with your audience. Remember, a connection is necessary for you to persuade your audience to accept your point of view.

Counter arguments are positions with which your audience might hold that contradict or oppose your arguments.

A value hierarchy holds certain values and beliefs over others while still affirming all of those values and beliefs.

Logical Fallacies: Weaknesses in Reasoning

Many potential pitfalls exist when you are creating arguments. These pitfalls, known as logical fallacies, are weaknesses in reasoning. As you read earlier in the chapter, every argument contains a claim, data, and reasoning that logically connects your data to your claim. In other words, when you craft an argument, a clear reason as to why your data supports and justifies your claim must exist. Without that clear connection, your argument will not make sense. Saying, for example, it will rain today because my finger itches does not make sense because there is not a clear connection between an itchy finger and rain. Logical fallacies are arguments in which there is not a clear connection between the claim and evidence, or there appears to be a connection between the two, but that connection is flawed. In other words, logical fallacies are weakness or flaws in the logic and reasoning of particular arguments.

Logical fallacies are fairly common. They can occur in political speeches, in arguments with friends and parents, commercials, and advertisements. An important part of being a critical listener is being able to notice the weaknesses in arguments. And, an important part of being an effective speaker is being able to avoid logical fallacies and develop the strongest arguments possible. As such, learning to identify logical fallacies will enhance your critical listening skills as well as your ability to be an effective speaker.

The Strawperson Fallacy

The strawperson fallacy exaggerates or misrepresents someone else’s argument to make that argument easier to refute. Recall the example from earlier in the chapter about giving a speech where you argued that taxes should be increased in order to pay for fixing potholes. Now, imagine that someone said, “all tax and spend liberals want is to take all your money and increase the size of government.” This statement is an example of the strawperson fallacy because your argument is not that the government should take all of the local townsfolk’s money. This person is exaggerating your argument to make it sound ridiculous and weaker than it is. The strawperson fallacy is a dishonest argumentative strategy because it fails to tell the audience the actual argument that needs to be refuted. It might be easier to “beat” a position if you misrepresent it, but doing so is unethical. Audience members who are familiar with the actual argument that you are refuting will know that you are exaggerating the argument and will view you with skepticism.

False Cause

The false cause fallacy assumes that if an actual or perceived relationship exists between two things, then one must be the cause of the other. That is, this fallacy assumes that correlation is causation. Thus, the false cause fallacy is committed when an argument is based on the mistaken belief that a causal relationship exists between two variables when no support for that relationship exists. When the false cause fallacy occurs in a speech, it is likely that causal relationship between the two variables has not been established or cannot be established. A Buzzfeed article posted in 2013 by Ky Harlin exhibits several interesting correlations and why you should not assume that one variable causes another based on a simple correlation. For example, Harlin’s article shows that there is a correlation between the amount of ice cream sold in a month and the number of murders that occur in a month. An argument using a false cause fallacy may claim that buying ice cream causes murder. Another example in Harlin’s article is a correlation exists between M. Night Shyamalan’s movie score on Rotten Tomatoes and total newspaper ad sales. [i] Assuming that people failing to buy newspaper ads makes M. Night Shyamalan worse at making movies would be a false cause fallacy. For each of these examples, other explanations likely exist for changes to each variable. In the case of ice cream and murder, perhaps the reason that both ice cream buying and murder increases in the summer is due to the weather or another variable entirely.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Meaning “after this, therefore because of this,” post hoc ergo propter hoc is a subset of the false cause fallacy. This fallacy assumes that if Event A happened before Event B, then Event A was the cause of Event B. If you ever hear people make the argument that their itchy fingers mean it is about to rain, they are likely committing this fallacy. Imagine that your finger started itching and then ten minutes later it started to rain. If you conclude that your itchy finger made it rain, then you would be assuming that an event happened first and thus caused the second event to occur. Logically, there is not a connection between the two events unless you are able to prove that connection to your audience. In other words, pointing out that two things happened in chronological order is not proof that one is connected to the other. Your audience will likely see the two things as independent of each other unless you can provide an explanation of why they are connected.

Red Herring

The red herring fallacy occurs when someone introduces irrelevant information or topics into a discussion in order to distract from the topic or debate at hand. This action is an attempt to “win” a debate by starting a discussion of another topic or by distracting those you are engaged with in an argument. For example, if you were at a local city council meeting where the topic of discussion was the road quality and potholes, someone giving a speech about the prevalence of local corruption in politics would probably distract people’s attention from the question about how to best fix the roads in the city. Red Herring is a fallacy because changing the discussion to another topic does not prove that you are correct about the previous topic. Asking yourself “does the claim that I am making clearly connect to the issue I am discussing?” will help you avoid making the red herring fallacy. [ii]

Meaning “to the person,” this logical fallacy is when someone attacks their opponent and does not respond to the opponent’s argument. Ad hominem is an attack on a person’s character, personality, or traits. For example, if you are trying to convince someone that college campuses should be tuition-free and that person responds by saying “you are stupid and have bad breath,” then that person has committed the ad hominem fallacy. This fallacy is a poor argumentative strategy because it distances the arguer from the audience. People generally avoid interacting with and listening to people who call them names or attack their character. Moreover, proving that someone else has bad character traits does not demonstrate to your audience that you are correct about a particular issue. So, instead of attempting to demean other points of view, use your speech to establish why you are correct about the topic to which you are speaking.

Either-Or Fallacy

Also called the forced dilemma fallacy, the either-or fallacy happens when someone presents two competing possibilities as the only two possibilities in a given situation. This presentation is a fallacy because it is likely that more than two possibilities exist. An example of this fallacy would be if a speaker argued for funding a new college by saying “either we fund this new college or it will close and our kids will never be able to attend college.” In that statement, the speaker only articulates two possibilities for what can happen. However, as you can probably tell, there are many other options for what could occur. Those kids could go to a different college, or funding for the new college could come from somewhere else. Using the either-or fallacy is a flawed argumentative strategy because members of your audience will recognize that other options exist. When members of your audience think of other options, you will lose credibility as a speaker because your audience will be able to tell that you did not take all other opinions and options about the issue into consideration as you developed your speech. Many issues are complex. Do not attempt to make them appear overly simplistic. Doing so does a disservice to yourself as a speaker and to your audience members.

Hasty Generalization

The hasty generalization fallacy is when a speaker reasons using examples but then jumps to a general conclusion without a sufficient number of examples. That is, the speaker uses examples to establish a general claim but uses too few examples to support that generalization. Moreover, the speaker might use examples that do not relate to the general claim that the speaker is attempting to make. Often stereotypes can arise because people reason using the hasty generalization fallacy. For instance, if someone made the argument that “one time I met a man wearing a red hat and he was really rude, therefore all men who wear red hats are rude,” that person would be using a hasty generalization to stereotype people with red hats. The hasty generalization is a weak argument strategy because members of an audience can often think of counter-examples that disprove the general claim. When making arguments based on examples, make sure that you have enough examples to demonstrate that your generalization is accurate.

The bandwagon fallacy occurs when someone assumes that something is true just because many people believe it to be true. Thus, appealing to the popularity of an idea as its primary support is the bandwagon fallacy. For example, if you wanted to convince your audience to avoid skydiving and argued that everyone knows that skydiving causes death, you have substituted actual evidence for the assertion that everyone knows you are correct. Just because people believe something is true does not mean that it is the case. Remember that a lot of people used to believe that the earth is flat and that leeches effectively cured diseases. Do not rely on the popularity of an idea to demonstrate that the idea is correct.

Logical fallacies arguments in which there is not a clear connection between the claim and evidence, or there appears to be a connection between the two, but that connection is flawed.

The strawperson fallacy exaggerates or misrepresents someone else’s argument to make that argument easier to refute.

The false cause fallacy assumes that if an actual or perceived relationship exists between two things, then one must be the cause of the other.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc , meaning “after this, therefore because of this,” is a subset of the false cause fallacy. This fallacy assumes that if Event A happened before Event B, then Event A was the cause of Event B.

The red herring fallacy occurs when someone introduces irrelevant information or topics into a discussion in order to distract from the topic or debate at hand.

Ad hominem is an attack on a person’s character, personality, or traits.

The either-or fallacy, or forced dilemma fallacy, happens when someone presents two competing possibilities as the only two possibilities in a given situation.

The hasty generalization fallacy is when a speaker reasons using examples but then jumps to a general conclusion without a sufficient number of examples.

The bandwagon fallacy occurs when someone assumes that something is true just because many people believe it to be true.

In this chapter, you learned several principles of argumentation. As you now know, arguments are about trying to solve collective problems. When we need to argue, it is because there is something needs to be changed or improved. We argue to convince people that there is a problem and that we can solve it. This mindset creates conditions where people might actually work to change and fix an issue. Moreover, arguments occur when there is uncertainty about what should happen in the future. We argue in an attempt to create more certainty by highlighting which options for the future are the best options. Finally, you learned that the success of an argument is based on whether or not it earns agreement from the audience.

This chapter also detailed the parts of the argument. Arguments contain these three parts: (1) the claim, (2) the data, and (3) the reasoning. The reasoning is the logical connection that shows why a particular piece of data supports the claim that a speaker is attempting to make. In addition, this chapter described six types of arguments that you might make in a speech: (1) arguments from examples, (2) arguments from deduction, (3) arguments of cause, (4) arguments by analogy, (5) arguments by sign, and (6) arguments from authority. It remains important to remember that your speech should develop several types of arguments in support of your thesis because certain types of arguments might be more persuasive than others. This chapter also defined and illustrated several types of weaknesses in arguments. These logical fallacies should be avoided when you develop a speech.

Whenever you need to develop an argument, other people might have different points of view on the issue. Rather than ignoring other people’s points of view, engage them and explain to your audience why they should prefer your point of view. Also, be willing to change your mind. Argumentation is not about who can yell the loudest. Instead, it is about giving your audience good reasons to believe in your point of view and engage ideas with which you may disagree. You cannot force someone to change their mind, but you can give good reasons as to why they should change their mind. That is the purpose of argumentation.

Stand up, Speak out Copyright © 2017 by Josh Miller; Marnie Lawler-Mcdonough; Megan Orcholski; Kristin Woodward; Lisa Roth; and Emily Mueller is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Argument and Argumentation

Argument is a central concept for philosophy. Philosophers rely heavily on arguments to justify claims, and these practices have been motivating reflections on what arguments and argumentation are for millennia. Moreover, argumentative practices are also pervasive elsewhere; they permeate scientific inquiry, legal procedures, education, and political institutions. The study of argumentation is an inter-disciplinary field of inquiry, involving philosophers, language theorists, legal scholars, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, and political scientists, among many others. This entry provides an overview of the literature on argumentation drawing primarily on philosophical sources, but also engaging extensively with relevant sources from other disciplines.

1. Terminological Clarifications

2.1 deduction, 2.2 induction, 2.3 abduction, 2.4 analogy, 2.5 fallacies, 3.1 adversarial and cooperative argumentation, 3.2 argumentation as an epistemic practice, 3.3 consensus-oriented argumentation, 3.4 argumentation and conflict management, 3.5 conclusion, 4.1 argumentation theory, 4.2 artificial intelligence and computer science, 4.3 cognitive science and psychology, 4.4 language and communication, 4.5 argumentation in specific social practices, 5.1 argumentative injustice and virtuous argumentation, 5.2 emotions and argumentation, 5.3 cross-cultural perspectives on argumentation, 5.4 argumentation and the internet, 6. conclusion, references for the main text, references for the historical supplement, other internet resources, related entries.

An argument can be defined as a complex symbolic structure where some parts, known as the premises, offer support to another part, the conclusion. Alternatively, an argument can be viewed as a complex speech act consisting of one or more acts of premising (which assert propositions in favor of the conclusion), an act of concluding, and a stated or implicit marker (“hence”, “therefore”) that indicates that the conclusion follows from the premises (Hitchcock 2007). [ 1 ] The relation of support between premises and conclusion can be cashed out in different ways: the premises may guarantee the truth of the conclusion, or make its truth more probable; the premises may imply the conclusion; the premises may make the conclusion more acceptable (or assertible).

For theoretical purposes, arguments may be considered as freestanding entities, abstracted from their contexts of use in actual human activities. But depending on one’s explanatory goals, there is also much to be gained from considering arguments as they in fact occur in human communicative practices. The term generally used for instances of exchange of arguments is argumentation . In what follows, the convention of using “argument” to refer to structures of premises and conclusion, and “argumentation” to refer to human practices and activities where arguments occur as communicative actions will be adopted.

Argumentation can be defined as the communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in order to support claims or defend/challenge positions, especially in situations of doubt or disagreement (Lewiński & Mohammed 2016). It is arguably best conceived as a kind of dialogue , even if one can also “argue” with oneself, in long speeches or in writing (in articles or books) for an intended but silent audience, or in groups rather than in dyads (Lewiński & Aakhus 2014). But argumentation is a special kind of dialogue: indeed, most of the dialogues we engage in are not instances of argumentation, for example when asking someone if they know what time it is, or when someone shares details about their vacation. Argumentation only occurs when, upon making a claim, someone receives a request for further support for the claim in the form of reasons, or estimates herself that further justification is required (Jackson & Jacobs 1980; Jackson, 2019). In such cases, dialogues of “giving and asking for reasons” ensue (Brandom, 1994; Bermejo Luque 2011). Since most of what we know we learn from others, argumentation seems to be an important mechanism to filter the information we receive, instead of accepting what others tell us uncritically (Sperber, Clément, et al. 2010).

The study of arguments and argumentation is also closely connected to the study of reasoning , understood as the process of reaching conclusions on the basis of careful, reflective consideration of the available information, i.e., by an examination of reasons . According to a widespread view, reasoning and argumentation are related (as both concern reasons) but fundamentally different phenomena: reasoning would belong to the mental realm of thinking—an individual inferring new information from the available information by means of careful consideration of reasons—whereas argumentation would belong to the public realm of the exchange of reasons, expressed in language or other symbolic media and intended for an audience. However, a number of authors have argued for a different view, namely that reasoning and argumentation are in fact two sides of the same coin, and that what is known as reasoning is by and large the internalization of practices of argumentation (MacKenzie 1989; Mercier & Sperber 2017; Mercier 2018). For the purposes of this entry, we can assume a close connection between reasoning and argumentation so that relevant research on reasoning can be suitably included in the discussions to come.

2. Types of Arguments

Arguments come in many kinds. In some of them, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and these are known as deductive arguments. In others, the truth of the premises should make the truth of the conclusion more likely while not ensuring complete certainty; two well-known classes of such arguments are inductive and abductive arguments (a distinction introduced by Peirce, see entry on C.S. Peirce ). Unlike deduction, induction and abduction are thought to be ampliative: the conclusion goes beyond what is (logically) contained in the premises. Moreover, a type of argument that features prominently across different philosophical traditions, and yet does not fit neatly into any of the categories so far discussed, are analogical arguments. In this section, these four kinds of arguments are presented. The section closes with a discussion of fallacious arguments, that is, arguments that seem legitimate and “good”, but in fact are not. [ 2 ]

Valid deductive arguments are those where the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion: the conclusion cannot but be true if the premises are true. Arguments having this property are said to be deductively valid . A valid argument whose premises are also true is said to be sound . Examples of valid deductive arguments are the familiar syllogisms, such as:

All humans are living beings. All living beings are mortal. Therefore, all humans are mortal.

In a deductively valid argument, the conclusion will be true in all situations where the premises are true, with no exceptions. A slightly more technical gloss of this idea goes as follows: in all possible worlds where the premises hold, the conclusion will also hold. This means that, if I know the premises of a deductively valid argument to be true of a given situation, then I can conclude with absolute certainty that the conclusion is also true of that situation. An important property typically associated with deductive arguments (but with exceptions, such as in relevant logic), and which differentiates them from inductive and abductive arguments, is the property of monotonicity : if premises A and B deductively imply conclusion C , then the addition of any arbitrary premise D will not invalidate the argument. In other words, if the argument “ A and B ; therefore C ” is deductively valid, then the argument “ A , B and D ; therefore C ” is equally deductively valid.

Deductive arguments are the objects of study of familiar logical systems such as (classical) propositional and predicate logic, as well as of subclassical systems such as intuitionistic and relevant logics (although in relevant logic the property of monotonicity does not hold, as it may lead to violations of criteria of relevance between premises and conclusion—see entry on relevance logic ). In each of these systems, the relation of logical consequence in question satisfies the property of necessary truth-preservation (see entry on logical consequence ). This is not surprising, as these systems were originally designed to capture arguments of a very specific kind, namely mathematical arguments (proofs), in the pioneering work of Frege, Russell, Hilbert, Gentzen, and others. Following a paradigm established in ancient Greek mathematics and famously captured in Euclid’s Elements , argumentative steps in mathematical proofs (in this tradition at least) must have the property of necessary truth preservation (Netz 1999). This paradigm remained influential for millennia, and still codifies what can be described as the “classical” conception of mathematical proof (Dutilh Novaes 2020a), even if practices of proof are ultimately also quite diverse. (In fact, there is much more to argumentation in mathematics than just deductive argumentation [Aberdein & Dove 2013].)

However, a number of philosophers have argued that deductive validity and necessary truth preservation in fact come apart. Some have reached this conclusion motivated by the familiar logical paradoxes such as the Liar or Curry’s paradox (Beall 2009; Field 2008; see entries on the Liar paradox and on Curry’s paradox ). Others have defended the idea that there are such things as contingent logical truths (Kaplan 1989; Nelson & Zalta 2012), which thus challenge the idea of necessary truth preservation. It has also been suggested that what is preserved in the transition from premises to conclusions in deductive arguments is in fact warrant or assertibility rather than truth (Restall 2004). Yet others, such as proponents of preservationist approaches to paraconsistent logic, posit that what is preserved by the deductive consequence relation is the coherence, or incoherence, of a set of premises (Schotch, Brown, & Jennings 2009; see entry on paraconsistent logic ). Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the view that deductive validity is to be understood primarily in terms of necessary truth preservation is still the received view.

Relatedly, there are a number of pressing philosophical issues pertaining to the justification of deduction, such as the exact nature of the necessity involved in deduction (metaphysical, logical, linguistic, epistemic; Shapiro 2005), and the possibility of offering a non-circular foundation for deduction (Dummett 1978). Furthermore, it is often remarked that the fact that a deductive argument is not ampliative may entail that it cannot be informative, which in turn would mean that its usefulness is quite limited; this problem has been described as “the scandal of deduction” (Sequoiah-Grayson 2008).

Be that as it may, deductive arguments have occupied a special place in philosophy and the sciences, ever since Aristotle presented the first fully-fledged theory of deductive argumentation and reasoning in the Prior Analytics (and the corresponding theory of scientific demonstration in the Posterior Analytics ; see Historical Supplement ). The fascination for deductive arguments is understandable, given their allure of certainty and indubitability. The more geometrico (a phrase introduced by Spinoza to describe the argumentative structure of his Ethics as following “a geometrical style”—see entry on Spinoza ) has been influential in many fields other than mathematics. However, the focus on deductive arguments at the expense of other types of arguments has arguably skewed investigations on argument and argumentation too much in one specific direction (see (Bermejo-Luque 2020) for a critique of deductivism in the study of argumentation).

In recent decades, the view that everyday reasoning and argumentation by and large do not follow the canons of deductive argumentation has been gaining traction. In psychology of reasoning, Oaksford and Chater were the first to argue already in the 1980s that human reasoning “in the wild” is essentially probabilistic, following the basic canons of Bayesian probabilities (Oaksford & Chater 2018; Elqayam 2018; see section 5.3 below). Computer scientists and artificial intelligence researchers have also developed a strong interest in non-monotonic reasoning and argumentation (Reiter 1980), recognizing that, outside specific scientific contexts, human reasoning tends to be deeply defeasible (Pollock 1987; see entries on non-monotonic logic and defeasible reasoning ). Thus seen, deductive argumentation might be considered as the exception rather than the rule in human argumentative practices taken as a whole (Dutilh Novaes 2020a). But there are others, especially philosophers, who still maintain that the use of deductive reasoning and argumentation is widespread and extends beyond niches of specialists (Shapiro 2014; Williamson 2018).

Inductive arguments are arguments where observations about past instances and regularities lead to conclusions about future instances and general principles. For example, the observation that the sun has risen in the east every single day until now leads to the conclusion that it will rise in the east tomorrow, and to the general principle “the sun always rises in the east”. Generally speaking, inductive arguments are based on statistical frequencies, which then lead to generalizations beyond the sample of cases initially under consideration: from the observed to the unobserved. In a good, i.e., cogent , inductive argument, the truth of the premises provides some degree of support for the truth of the conclusion. In contrast with a deductively valid argument, in an inductive argument the degree of support will never be maximal, as there is always the possibility of the conclusion being false given the truth of the premises. A gloss in terms of possible worlds might be that, while in a deductively valid argument the conclusion will hold in all possible worlds where the premises hold, in a good inductive argument the conclusion will hold in a significant proportion of the possible worlds where the premises hold. The proportion of such worlds may give a measure of the strength of support of the premises for the conclusion (see entry on inductive logic ).

Inductive arguments have been recognized and used in science and elsewhere for millennia. The concept of induction ( epagoge in Greek) was understood by Aristotle as a progression from particulars to a universal, and figured prominently both in his conception of the scientific method and in dialectical practices (see entry on Aristotle’s logic, section 3.1 ). However, a deductivist conception of the scientific method remained overall more influential in Aristotelian traditions, inspired by the theory of scientific demonstration of the Posterior Analytics . It is only with the so-called “scientific revolution” of the early modern period that experiments and observation of individual cases became one of the pillars of scientific methodology, a transition that is strongly associated with the figure of Francis Bacon (1561–1626; see entry on Francis Bacon ).

Inductive inferences/arguments are ubiquitous both in science and in everyday life, and for the most part quite reliable. The functioning of the world around us seems to display a fair amount of statistical regularity, and this is referred to as the “Uniformity Principle” in the literature on the problem of induction (to be discussed shortly). Moreover, it has been argued that generalizing from previously observed frequencies is the most basic principle of human cognition (Clark 2016).

However, it has long been recognized that inductive inferences/arguments are not unproblematic. Hume famously offered the first influential formulation of what became known as “the problem of induction” in his Treatise of Human Nature (see entries on David Hume and on the problem of induction ; Howson 2000). Hume raises the question of what grounds the correctness of inductive inferences/arguments, and posits that there must be an argument establishing the validity of the Uniformity Principle for inductive inferences to be truly justified. He goes on to argue that this argument cannot be deductive, as it is not inconceivable that the course of nature may change. But it cannot be probable either, as probable arguments already presuppose the validity of the Uniformity Principle; circularity would ensue. Since these are the only two options, he concludes that the Uniformity Principle cannot be established by rational argument, and hence that induction cannot be justified.

A more recent influential critique of inductive arguments is the one offered in (Harman 1965). Harman argues that either enumerative induction is not always warranted, or it is always warranted but constitutes an uninteresting special case of the more general category of inference to the best explanation (see next section). The upshot is that, for Harman, induction should not be considered a warranted form of inference in its own right.

Given the centrality of induction for scientific practice, there have been numerous attempts to respond to the critics of induction, with various degrees of success. Among those, an influential recent response to the problem of induction is Norton’s material theory of induction (Norton 2003). But the problem has not prevented scientists and laypeople alike from continuing to use induction widely. More recently, the use of statistical frequencies for social categories to draw conclusions about specific individuals has become a matter of contention, both at the individual level (see entry on implicit bias ) and at the institutional level (e.g., the use of predictive algorithms for law enforcement [Jorgensen Bolinger 2021]). These debates can be seen as reoccurrences of Hume’s problem of induction, now in the domain of social rather than of natural phenomena.

An abductive argument is one where, from the observation of a few relevant facts, a conclusion is drawn as to what could possibly explain the occurrence of these facts (see entry on abduction ). Abduction is widely thought to be ubiquitous both in science and in everyday life, as well as in other specific domains such as the law, medical diagnosis, and explainable artificial intelligence (Josephson & Josephson 1994). Indeed, a good example of abduction is the closing argument by a prosecutor in a court of law who, after summarizing the available evidence, concludes that the most plausible explanation for it is that the defendant must have committed the crime they are accused of.

Like induction, and unlike deduction, abduction is not necessarily truth-preserving: in the example above, it is still possible that the defendant is not guilty after all, and that some other, unexpected phenomena caused the evidence to emerge. But abduction is significantly different from induction in that it does not only concern the generalization of prior observation for prediction (though it may also involve statistical data): rather, abduction is often backward-looking in that it seeks to explain something that has already happened. The key notion is that of bringing together apparently independent phenomena or events as explanatorily and/or causally connected to each other, something that is absent from a purely inductive argument that only appeals to observed frequencies. Cognitively, abduction taps into the well-known human tendency to seek (causal) explanations for phenomena (Keil 2006).

As noted, deduction and induction have been recognized as important classes of arguments for millennia; the concept of abduction is by comparison a latecomer. It is important to notice though that explanatory arguments as such are not latecomers; indeed, Aristotle’s very conception of scientific demonstration is based on the concept of explaining causes (see entry on Aristotle ). What is recent is the conceptualization of abduction as a special class of arguments, and the term itself. The term was introduced by Peirce as a third class of inferences distinct from deduction and induction: for Peirce, abduction is understood as the process of forming explanatory hypotheses, thus leading to new ideas and concepts (whereas for him deduction and induction could not lead to new ideas or theories; see the entry on Peirce ). Thus seen, abduction pertains to contexts of discovery , in which case it is not clear that it corresponds to instances of arguments, properly speaking. In its modern meaning, however, abduction pertains to contexts of justification , and thus to speak of abductive arguments becomes appropriate. An abductive argument is now typically understood as an inference to the best explanation (Lipton 1971 [2003]), although some authors contend that there are good reasons to distinguish the two concepts (Campos 2011).

While the main ideas behind abduction may seem simple enough, cashing out more precisely how exactly abduction works is a complex matter (see entry on abduction ). Moreover, it is not clear that abductive arguments are always or even generally reliable and cogent. Humans seem to have a tendency to overshoot in their quest for causal explanations, and often look for simplicity where there is none to be found (Lombrozo 2007; but see Sober 2015 on the significance of parsimony in scientific reasoning). There are also a number of philosophical worries pertaining to the justification of abduction, especially in scientific contexts; one influential critique of abduction/inference to the best explanation is the one articulated by van Fraassen (Fraassen 1989). A frequent concern pertains to the connection between explanatory superiority and truth: are we entitled to conclude that the conclusion of an abductive argument is true solely on the basis of it being a good (or even the best) explanation for the phenomena in question? It seems that no amount of philosophical a priori theorizing will provide justification for the leap from explanatory superiority to truth. Instead, defenders of abduction tend to offer empirical arguments showing that abduction tends to be a reliable rule of inference. In this sense, abduction and induction are comparable: they are widely used, grounded in very basic human cognitive tendencies, but they give rise to a number of difficult philosophical problems.

Arguments by analogy are based on the idea that, if two things are similar, what is true of one of them is likely to be true of the other as well (see entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ). Analogical arguments are widely used across different domains of human activity, for example in legal contexts (see entry on precedent and analogy in legal reasoning ). As an example, take an argument for the wrongness of farming non-human animals for food consumption: if an alien species farmed humans for food, that would be wrong; so, by analogy, it is wrong for us humans to farm non-human animals for food. The general idea is captured in the following schema (adapted from the entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ; S is the source domain and T the target domain of the analogy):

• S is similar to T in certain (known) respects.
• S has some further feature Q .
• Therefore, T also has the feature Q , or some feature Q * similar to Q .

The first premise establishes the analogy between two situations, objects, phenomena etc. The second premise states that the source domain has a given property. The conclusion is then that the target domain also has this property, or a suitable counterpart thereof. While informative, this schema does not differentiate between good and bad analogical arguments, and so does not offer much by way of explaining what grounds (good) analogical arguments. Indeed, contentious cases usually pertain to premise 1, and in particular to whether S and T are sufficiently similar in a way that is relevant for having or not having feature Q .

Analogical arguments are widely present in all known philosophical traditions, including three major ancient traditions: Greek, Chinese, and Indian (see Historical Supplement ). Analogies abound in ancient Greek philosophical texts, for example in Plato’s dialogues. In the Gorgias , for instance, the knack of rhetoric is compared to pastry-baking—seductive but ultimately unhealthy—whereas philosophy would correspond to medicine—potentially painful and unpleasant but good for the soul/body (Irani 2017). Aristotle discussed analogy extensively in the Prior Analytics and in the Topics (see section 3.2 of the entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ). In ancient Chinese philosophy, analogy occupies a very prominent position; indeed, it is perhaps the main form of argumentation for Chinese thinkers. Mohist thinkers were particularly interested in analogical arguments (see entries on logic and language in early Chinese philosophy , Mohism and the Mohist canons ). In the Latin medieval tradition too analogy received sustained attention, in particular in the domains of logic, theology and metaphysics (see entry on medieval theories of analogy ).

Analogical arguments continue to occupy a central position in philosophical discussions, and a number of the most prominent philosophical arguments of the last decades are analogical arguments, e.g., Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument purportedly showing the permissibility of abortion (Thomson 1971), and Searle’s Chinese Room argument purportedly showing that computers cannot display real understanding (see entry on the Chinese Room argument ). (Notice that these two arguments are often described as thought experiments [see entry on thought experiments ], but thought experiments are often based on analogical principles when seeking to make a point that transcends the thought experiment as such.) The Achilles’ heel of analogical arguments can be illustrated by these two examples: both arguments have been criticized on the grounds that the purported similarity between the source and the target domains is not sufficient to extrapolate the property of the source domain (the permissibility of disconnecting from the violinist; the absence of understanding in the Chinese room) to the target domain (abortion; digital computers and artificial intelligence).

In sum, while analogical arguments in general perhaps confer a lesser degree of conviction than the other three kinds of arguments discussed, they are widely used both in professional circles and in everyday life. They have rightly attracted a fair amount of attention from scholars in different disciplines, and remain an important object of study (see entry on analogy and analogical reasoning ).

One of the most extensively studied types of arguments throughout the centuries are, perhaps surprisingly, arguments that appear legitimate but are not, known as fallacious arguments . From early on, the investigation of such arguments occupied a prominent position in Aristotelian logical traditions, inspired in particular by his book Sophistical Refutations (see Historical Supplement ). The thought is that, to argue well, it is not sufficient to be able to produce and recognize good arguments; it is equally (or perhaps even more) important to be able to recognize bad arguments by others, and to avoid producing bad arguments oneself. This is particularly true of the tricky cases, namely arguments that appear legitimate but are not, i.e., fallacies.

Some well-know types of fallacies include (see entry on fallacies for a more extensive discussion):

• The fallacy of equivocation, which occurs when an arguer exploits the ambiguity of a term or phrase which has occurred at least twice in an argument to draw an unwarranted conclusion.
• The fallacy of begging the question, when one of the premises and the conclusion of an argument are the same proposition, but differently formulated.
• The fallacy of appeal to authority, when a claim is supported by reference to an authority instead of offering reasons to support it.
• The ad hominem fallacy, which involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to argue against the view they are advancing.
• The fallacy of faulty analogy, when an analogy is used as an argument but there is not sufficient relevant similarity between the source domain and the target domain (as discussed above).

Beyond their (presumed?) usefulness in teaching argumentative skills, the literature on fallacies raises a number of important philosophical discussions, such as: What determines when an argument is fallacious or rather a legitimate argument? (See section 4.3 below on Bayesian accounts of fallacies) What causes certain arguments to be fallacious? Is the focus on fallacies a useful approach to arguments at all? (Massey 1981) Despite the occasional criticism, the concept of fallacies remains central in the study of arguments and argumentation.

3. Types of Argumentation

Just as there are different types of arguments, there are different types of argumentative situations, depending on the communicative goals of the persons involved and background conditions. Argumentation may occur when people are trying to reach consensus in a situation of dissent, but it may also occur when scientists discuss their findings with each other (to name but two examples). Specific rules of argumentative engagement may vary depending on these different types of argumentation.

A related point extensively discussed in the recent literature pertains to the function(s) of argumentation. [ 3 ] What’s the point of arguing? While it is often recognized that argumentation may have multiple functions, different authors tend to emphasize specific functions for argumentation at the expense of others. This section offers an overview of discussions on types of argumentation and its functions, demonstrating that argumentation is a multifaceted phenomenon that has different applications in different circumstances.

A question that has received much attention in the literature of the past decades pertains to whether the activity of argumentation is primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative. This question in fact corresponds to two sub-questions: the descriptive question of whether instances of argumentation are on the whole primarily adversarial or cooperative; and the normative question of whether argumentation should be (primarily) adversarial or cooperative. A number of authors have answered “adversarial” to the descriptive question and “cooperative” to the normative question, thus identifying a discrepancy between practices and normative ideals that must be remedied (or so they claim; Cohen 1995).

A case in point: recently, a number of far-right Internet personalities have advocated the idea that argumentation can be used to overpower one’s opponents, as described in the book The Art of the Argument: Western Civilization’s Last Stand (2017) by the white supremacist S. Molyneux. Such aggressive practices reflect a vision of argumentation as a kind of competition or battle, where the goal is to “score points” and “beat the opponent”. Authors who have criticized (overly) adversarial practices of argumentation include (Moulton 1983; Gilbert 1994; Rooney 2012; Hundleby 2013; Bailin & Battersby 2016). Many (but not all) of these authors formulated their criticism specifically from a feminist perspective (see entry on feminist perspectives on argumentation ).

Feminist critiques of adversarial argumentation challenge ideals of argumentation as a form of competition, where masculine-coded values of aggression and violence prevail (Kidd 2020). For these authors, such ideals encourage argumentative performances where excessive use of forcefulness is on display. Instances of aggressive argumentation in turn have a number of problematic consequences: epistemic consequences—the pursuit of truth is not best served by adversarial argumentation—as well as moral/ethical/political consequences—these practices exclude a number of people from participating in argumentative encounters, namely those for whom displays of aggression do not constitute socially acceptable behavior (women and other socially disadvantaged groups in particular). These authors defend alternative conceptions of argumentation as a cooperative, nurturing activity (Gilbert 1994; Bailin & Battersby 2016), which are traditionally feminine-coded values. Crucially, they view adversarial conceptions of argumentation as optional , maintaining that the alternatives are equally legitimate and that cooperative conceptions should be adopted and cultivated.

By contrast, others have argued that adversariality, when suitably understood, can be seen as an integral and in fact desirable component of argumentation (Govier 1999; Aikin 2011; Casey 2020; but notice that these authors each develop different accounts of adversariality in argumentation). Such authors answer “adversarial” both to the descriptive and to the normative questions stated above. One overall theme is the need to draw a distinction between (excessive) aggressiveness and adversariality as such. Govier, for example, distinguishes between ancillary (negative) adversariality and minimal adversariality (Govier 1999). The thought is that, while the feminist critique of excessive aggression in argumentation is well taken, adversariality conceived and practiced in different ways need not have the detrimental consequences of more extreme versions of belligerent argumentation. Moreover, for these authors, adversariality in argumentation is simply not optional: it is an intrinsic feature of argumentative practices, but these practices also require a background of cooperation and agreement regarding, e.g., the accepted rules of inference.

But ultimately, the presumed opposition between adversarial and cooperative conceptions of argumentation may well be merely apparent. It may be argued for example that actual argumentative encounters ought to be adversarial or cooperative to different degrees, as different types of argumentation are required for different situations (Dutilh Novaes forthcoming). Indeed, perhaps we should not look for a one-fits-all model of how argumentation ought to be conducted across different contexts and situation, given the diversity of uses of argumentation.

We speak of argumentation as an epistemic practice when we take its primary purpose to be that of improving our beliefs and increasing knowledge, or of fostering understanding. To engage in argumentation can be a way to acquire more accurate beliefs: by examining critically reasons for and against a given position, we would be able to weed out weaker, poorly justified beliefs (likely to be false) and end up with stronger, suitably justified beliefs (likely to be true). From this perspective, the goal of engaging in argumentation is to learn , i.e., to improve one’s epistemic position (as opposed to argumentation “to win” (Fisher & Keil 2016)). Indeed, argumentation is often said to be truth-conducive (Betz 2013).

The idea that argumentation can be an epistemically beneficial process is as old as philosophy itself. In every major historical philosophical tradition, argumentation is viewed as an essential component of philosophical reflection precisely because it may be used to aim at the truth (indeed this is the core of Plato’s critique of the Sophists and their excessive focus on persuasion at the expense of truth (Irani 2017; see Historical Supplement ). Recent proponents of an epistemological approach to argumentation include (Goldman 2004; Lumer 2005; Biro & Siegel 2006). Alvin Goldman captures this general idea in the following terms:

Norms of good argumentation are substantially dedicated to the promotion of truthful speech and the exposure of falsehood, whether intentional or unintentional. […] Norms of good argumentation are part of a practice to encourage the exchange of truths through sincere, non-negligent, and mutually corrective speech. (Goldman 1994: 30)

Of course, it is at least in theory possible to engage in argumentation with oneself along these lines, solitarily weighing the pros and cons of a position. But a number of philosophers, most notably John Stuart Mill, maintain that interpersonal argumentative situations, involving people who truly disagree with each other, work best to realize the epistemic potential of argumentation to improve our beliefs (a point he developed in On Liberty (1859; see entry on John Stuart Mill ). When our ideas are challenged by engagement with those who disagree with us, we are forced to consider our own beliefs more thoroughly and critically. The result is that the remaining beliefs, those that have survived critical challenge, will be better grounded than those we held before such encounters. Dissenters thus force us to stay epistemically alert instead of becoming too comfortable with existing, entrenched beliefs. On this conception, arguers cooperate with each other precisely by being adversarial, i.e., by adopting a critical stance towards the positions one disagrees with.

The view that argumentation aims at epistemic improvement is in many senses appealing, but it is doubtful that it reflects the actual outcomes of argumentation in many real-life situations. Indeed, it seems that, more often than not, we are not Millians when arguing: we do not tend to engage with dissenting opinions with an open mind. Indeed, there is quite some evidence suggesting that arguments are in fact not a very efficient means to change minds in most real-life situations (Gordon-Smith 2019). People typically do not like to change their minds about firmly entrenched beliefs, and so when confronted with arguments or evidence that contradict these beliefs, they tend to either look away or to discredit the source of the argument as unreliable (Dutilh Novaes 2020c)—a phenomenon also known as “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998).

In particular, arguments that threaten our core beliefs and our sense of belonging to a group (e.g., political beliefs) typically trigger all kinds of motivated reasoning (Taber & Lodge 2006; Kahan 2017) whereby one outright rejects those arguments without properly engaging with their content. Relatedly, when choosing among a vast supply of options, people tend to gravitate towards content and sources that confirm their existing opinions, thus giving rise to so-called “echo chambers” and “epistemic bubbles” (Nguyen 2020). Furthermore, some arguments can be deceptively convincing in that they look valid but are not (Tindale 2007; see entry on fallacies ). Because most of us are arguably not very good at spotting fallacious arguments, especially if they are arguments that lend support to the beliefs we already hold, engaging in argumentation may in fact decrease the accuracy of our beliefs by persuading us of false conclusions with incorrect arguments (Fantl 2018).

In sum, despite the optimism of Mill and many others, it seems that engaging in argumentation will not automatically improve our beliefs (even if this may occur in some circumstances). [ 4 ] However, it may still be argued that an epistemological approach to argumentation can serve the purpose of providing a normative ideal for argumentative practices, even if it is not always a descriptively accurate account of these practices in the messy real world. Moreover, at least some concrete instances of argumentation, in particular argumentation in science (see section 4.5 below) seem to offer successful examples of epistemic-oriented argumentative practices.

Another important strand in the literature on argumentation are theories that view consensus as the primary goal of argumentative processes: to eliminate or resolve a difference of (expressed) opinion. The tradition of pragma-dialectics is a prominent recent exponent of this strand (Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004). These consensus-oriented approaches are motivated by the social complexity of human life, and the attribution of a role of social coordination to argumentation. Because humans are social animals who must often cooperate with other humans to successfully accomplish certain tasks, they must have mechanisms to align their beliefs and intentions, and subsequently their actions (Tomasello 2014). The thought is that argumentation would be a particularly suitable mechanism for such alignment, as an exchange of reasons would make it more likely that differences of opinion would decrease (Norman 2016). This may happen precisely because argumentation would be a good way to track truths and avoid falsehoods, as discussed in the previous section; by being involved in the same epistemic process of exchanging reasons, the participants in an argumentative situation would all come to converge towards the truth, and thus the upshot would be that they also come to agree with each other. However, consensus-oriented views need not presuppose that argumentation is truth-conducive: the ultimate goal of such instances of argumentation is that of social coordination, and for this tracking truth is not a requirement (Patterson 2011).

In particular, the very notion of deliberative democracy is viewed as resting crucially on argumentative practices that aim for consensus (Fishkin 2016; see entry on democracy ). (For present purposes, “deliberation” and “argumentation” can be treated as roughly synonymous). In a deliberative democracy, for a decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic public deliberation—a discussion of the pros and cons of the different options—not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Moreover, in democratic deliberation, when full consensus does not emerge, the parties involved may opt for a compromise solution, e.g., a coalition-based political system.

A prominent theorist of deliberative democracy thus understood is Jürgen Habermas, whose “discourse theory of law and democracy” relies heavily on practices of political justification and argumentation taking place in what he calls “the public sphere” (Habermas 1992 [1996]; 1981 [1984]; see entry on Habermas ). He starts from the idea that politics allows for the collective organization of people’s lives, including the common rules they will live by. Political argumentation is a form of communicative practice, so general assumptions for communicative practices in general apply. However, additional assumptions apply as well (Olson 2011 [2014]). In particular, deliberating participants must accept that anyone can participate in these discursive practices (democratic deliberation should be inclusive), and that anyone can introduce and challenge claims that are made in the public sphere (democratic deliberation should be free). They must also see one another as having equal status, at least for the purposes of deliberation (democratic deliberation should be equal). In turn, critics of Habermas’s account view it as unrealistic, as it presupposes an ideal situation where all citizens are treated equally and engage in public debates in good faith (Mouffe 1999; Geuss 2019).

More generally, it seems that it is only under quite specific conditions that argumentation reliably leads to consensus (as also suggested by formal modeling of argumentative situations (Betz 2013; Olsson 2013; Mäs & Flache 2013)). Consensus-oriented argumentation seems to work well in cooperative contexts, but not so much in situations of conflict (Dutilh Novaes forthcoming). In particular, the discussing parties must already have a significant amount of background agreement—especially agreement on what counts as a legitimate argument or compelling evidence—for argumentation and deliberation to lead to consensus. Especially in situations of deep disagreement (Fogelin 1985), it seems that the potential of argumentation to lead to consensus is quite limited. Instead, in many real-life situations, argumentation often leads to the opposite result; people disagree with each other even more after engaging in argumentation (Sunstein 2002). This is the well-documented phenomenon of group polarization , which occurs when an initial position or tendency of individual members of a group becomes more extreme after group discussion (Isenberg 1986).

In fact, it may be argued that argumentation will often create or exacerbate conflict and adversariality, rather than leading to the resolution of differences of opinions. Furthermore, a focus on consensus may end up reinforcing and perpetuating existing unequal power relations in a society.

In an unjust society, what purports to be a cooperative exchange of reasons really perpetuates patterns of oppression. (Goodwin 2007: 77)

This general point has been made by a number of political thinkers (e.g., Young 2000), who have highlighted the exclusionary implications of consensus-oriented political deliberation. The upshot is that consensus may not only be an unrealistic goal for argumentation; it may not even be a desirable goal for argumentation in a number of situations (e.g., when there is great power imbalance). Despite these concerns, the view that the primary goal of argumentation is to aim for consensus remains influential in the literature.

Finally, a number of authors have attributed to argumentation the potential to manage (pre-existing) conflict. In a sense, the consensus-oriented view of argumentation just discussed is a special case of conflict management argumentation, based on the assumption that the best way to manage conflict and disagreement is to aim for consensus and thus eliminate conflict. But conflict can be managed in different ways, not all of them leading to consensus; indeed, some authors maintain that argumentation may help mitigate conflict even when the explicit aim is not that of reaching consensus. Importantly, authors who identify conflict management (or variations thereof) as a function for argumentation differ in their overall appreciation of the value of argumentation: some take it to be at best futile and at worst destructive, [ 5 ] while others attribute a more positive role to argumentation in conflict management.

To this category also belong the conceptualizations of argumentation-as-war discussed (and criticized) by a number of authors (Cohen 1995; Bailin & Battersby 2016); in such cases, conflict is not so much managed but rather enacted (and possibly exacerbated) by means of argumentation. Thus seen, the function of argumentation would not be fundamentally different from the function of organized competitive activities such as sports or even war (with suitable rules of engagement; Aikin 2011).

When conflict emerges, people have various options: they may choose not to engage and instead prefer to flee; they may go into full-blown fighting mode, which may include physical aggression; or they may opt for approaches somewhere in between the fight-or-flee extremes of the spectrum. Argumentation can be plausibly classified as an intermediary response:

[A]rgument literally is a form of pacifism—we are using words instead of swords to settle our disputes. With argument, we settle our disputes in ways that are most respectful of those who disagree—we do not buy them off, we do not threaten them, and we do not beat them into submission. Instead, we give them reasons that bear on the truth or falsity of their beliefs. However adversarial argument may be, it isn’t bombing. […] argument is a pacifistic replacement for truly violent solutions to disagreements…. (Aikin 2011: 256)

This is not to say that argumentation will always or even typically be the best approach to handle conflict and disagreement; the point is rather that argumentation at least has the potential to do so, provided that the background conditions are suitable and that provisions to mitigate escalation are in place (Aikin 2011). Versions of this view can be found in the work of proponents of agonistic conceptions of democracy and political deliberation (Wenman 2013; see entry on feminist political philosophy ). For agonist thinkers, conflict and strife are inevitable features of human lives, and so cannot be eliminated; but they can be managed. One of them is Chantal Mouffe (Mouffe 2000), for whom democratic practices, including argumentation/deliberation, can serve to contain hostility and transform it into more constructive forms of contest. However, it is far from obvious that argumentation by itself will suffice to manage conflict; typically, other kinds of intervention must be involved (Young 2000), as the risk of argumentation being used to exercise power rather than as a tool to manage conflict always looms large (van Laar & Krabbe 2019).

From these observations on different types of argumentation, a pluralistic picture emerges: argumentation, understood as the exchange of reasons to justify claims, seems to have different applications in different situations. However, it is not clear that some of the goals often attributed to argumentation such as epistemic improvement and reaching consensus can in fact be reliably achieved in many real life situations. Does this mean that argumentation is useless and futile? Not necessarily, but it may mean that engaging in argumentation will not always be the optimal response in a number of contexts.

4. Argumentation Across Fields of Inquiry and Social Practices

Argumentation is practiced and studied in many fields of inquiry; philosophers interested in argumentation have much to benefit from engaging with these bodies of research as well.

To understand the emergence of argumentation theory as a specific field of research in the twentieth century, a brief discussion of preceding events is necessary. In the nineteenth century, a number of textbooks aiming to improve everyday reasoning via public education emphasized logical and rhetorical concerns, such as those by Richard Whately (see entry on fallacies ). As noted in section 3.2 , John Stuart Mill also had a keen interest in argumentation and its role in public discourse (Mill 1859), as well as an interest in logic and reasoning (see entries on Mill and on fallacies ). But with the advent of mathematical logic in the final decades of the nineteenth century, logic and the study of ordinary, everyday argumentation came apart, as logicians such as Frege, Hilbert, Russell etc. were primarily interested in mathematical reasoning and argumentation. As a result, their logical systems are not particularly suitable to study everyday argumentation, as this is simply not what they were designed to do. [ 6 ]

Nevertheless, in the twentieth century a number of authors took inspiration from developments in formal logic and expanded the use of logical tools to the analysis of ordinary argumentation. A pioneer in this tradition is Susan Stebbing, who wrote what can be seen as the first textbook in analytic philosophy, and then went on to write a number of books aimed at a general audience addressing everyday and public discourse from a philosophical/logical perspective (see entry on Susan Stebbing ). Her 1939 book Thinking to Some Purpose , which can be considered as one of the first textbooks in critical thinking, was widely read at the time, but did not become particularly influential for the development of argumentation theory in the decades to follow.

By contrast, Stephen Toulmin’s 1958 book The Uses of Argument has been tremendously influential in a wide range of fields, including critical thinking education, rhetoric, speech communication, and computer science (perhaps even more so than in Toulmin’s own original field, philosophy). Toulmin’s aim was to criticize the assumption (widely held by Anglo-American philosophers at the time) that any significant argument can be formulated in purely formal, deductive terms, using the formal logical systems that had emerged in the preceding decades (see (Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 4). While this critique was met with much hostility among fellow philosophers, it eventually gave rise to an alternative way of approaching argumentation, which is often described as “informal logic” (see entry on informal logic ). This approach seeks to engage and analyze instances of argumentation in everyday life; it recognizes that, while useful, the tools of deductive logic alone do not suffice to investigate argumentation in all its complexity and pragmatic import. In a similar vein, Charles Hamblin’s 1970 book Fallacies reinvigorated the study of fallacies in the context of argumentation by re-emphasizing (following Aristotle) the importance of a dialectical-dialogical background when reflecting on fallacies in argumentation (see entry on fallacies ).

Around the same time as Toulmin, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca were developing an approach to argumentation that emphasized its persuasive component. To this end, they turned to classical theories of rhetoric, and adapted them to give rise to what they described as the “New Rhetoric”. Their book Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique was published in 1958 in French, and translated into English in 1969. Its key idea:

since argumentation aims at securing the adherence of those to whom it is addressed, it is, in its entirety, relative to the audience to be influenced. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958 [1969: 19])

They introduced the influential distinction between universal and particular audiences: while every argument is directed at a specific individual or group, the concept of a universal audience serves as a normative ideal encapsulating shared standards of agreement on what counts as legitimate argumentation (see Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 5).

The work of these pioneers provided the foundations for subsequent research in argumentation theory. One approach that became influential in the following decades is the pragma-dialectics tradition developed by Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 2004). They also founded the journal Argumentation , one of the flagship journals in argumentation theory. Pragma-dialectics was developed to study argumentation as a discourse activity, a complex speech act that occurs as part of interactional linguistic activities with specific communicative goals (“pragma” refers to the functional perspective of goals, and “dialectic” to the interactive component). For these authors, argumentative discourse is primarily directed at the reasonable resolution of a difference of opinion. Pragma-dialectics has a descriptive as well as a normative component, thus offering tools both for the analysis of concrete instances of argumentation and for the evaluation of argumentation correctness and success (see Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 10).

Another leading author in argumentation theory is Douglas Walton, who pioneered the argument schemes approach to argumentation that borrows tools from formal logic but expands them so as to treat a wider range of arguments than those covered by traditional logical systems (Walton, Reed, & Macagno 2008). Walton also formulated an influential account of argumentation in dialogue in collaboration with Erik Krabbe (Walton & Krabbe 1995). Ralph Johnson and Anthony Blair further helped to consolidate the field of argumentation theory and informal logic by founding the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric in Windsor (Ontario, Canada), and by initiating the journal Informal Logic . Their textbook Logical Self-Defense (Johnson & Blair 1977) has also been particularly influential.

The study of argumentation within computer science and artificial intelligence is a thriving field of research, with dedicated journals such as Argument and Computation and regular conference series such as COMMA (International Conference on Computational Models of Argument; see Rahwan & Simari 2009 and Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 11 for overviews).

The historical roots of argumentation research in artificial intelligence can be traced back to work on non-monotonic logics (see entry on non-monotonic logics ) and defeasible reasoning (see entry on defeasible reasoning ). Since then, three main different perspectives have emerged (Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: ch. 11): the theoretical systems perspective, where the focus is on theoretical and formal models of argumentation (following the tradition of philosophical and formal logic); the artificial systems perspective, where the aim is to build computer programs that model or support argumentative tasks, for instance, in online dialogue games or in expert systems; the natural systems perspective, which investigates argumentation in its natural form with the help of computational tools (e.g., argumentation mining [Peldszus & Stede 2013; Habernal & Gurevych 2017], where computational methods are used to identify argumentative structures in large corpora of texts).

An influential approach in this research tradition is that of abstract argumentation frameworks , initiated by the pioneering work of Dung (1995). Before that, argumentation in AI was studied mostly under the inspiration of concepts coming from informal logic such as argumentation schemes, context, stages of dialogues and argument moves. By contrast, the key notion in the framework proposed by Dung is that of argument attack , understood as an abstract formal relation roughly intended to capture the idea that it is possible to challenge an argument by means of another argument (assertions are understood as a special case of arguments with zero premises). Arguments can then be represented in networks of attacks and defenses: an argument A can attack an argument B , and B in turn may attack further arguments C and D (the connection with the notion of defeaters is a natural one, which Dung also addresses).

Besides abstract argumentation, three other important lines of research in AI are: the (internal) structure of arguments; argumentation in multi-agent systems; applications to specific tasks and domains (Rahwan & Siwari 2009). The structural approach investigates formally features such as argument strength/force (e.g., a conclusive argument is stronger than a defeasible argument), argument schemes (Bex, Prakken, Reed, & Walton 2003) etc. Argumentation in multi-agent systems is a thriving subfield with its own dedicated conference series (ArgMAS), based on the recognition that argumentation is a particularly suitable vehicle to facilitate interaction in the artificial environments studied by AI researchers working on multi-agent systems (see a special issue of the journal Argument & Computation [Atkinson, Cerutti, et al. 2016]). Finally, computational approaches in argumentation have also thrived with respect to specific domains and applications, such as legal argumentation (Prakken & Sartor 2015). Recently, as a reaction to the machine-learning paradigm, the idea of explainable AI has gotten traction, and the concept of argumentation is thought to play a fundamental role for explainable AI (Sklar & Azhar 2018).

Argumentation is also an important topic of investigation within cognitive science and psychology. Researchers in these fields are predominantly interested in the descriptive question of how people in fact engage in argumentation, rather than in the normative question of how they ought to do it (although some of them have also drawn normative conclusions, e.g., Hahn & Oaksford 2006; Hahn & Hornikx, 2016). Controlled experiments are one of the ways in which the descriptive question can be investigated.

Systematic research specifically on argumentation within cognitive science and psychology has significantly increased over the last 10 years. Before that, there had been extensive research on reasoning conceived as an individual, internal process, much of which had been conducted using task materials such as syllogistic arguments (Dutilh Novaes 2020b). But due to what may be described as an individualist bias in cognitive science and psychology (Mercier 2018), these researchers did not draw explicit connections between their findings and the public acts of “giving and asking for reasons”. It is only somewhat recently that argumentation began to receive sustained attention from these researchers. The investigations of Hugo Mercier and colleagues (Mercier & Sperber 2017; Mercier 2018) and of Ulrike Hahn and colleagues (Hahn & Oaksford 2007; Hornikx & Hahn 2012; Collins & Hahn 2018) have been particularly influential. (See also Paglieri, Bonelli, & Felletti 2016, an edited volume containing a representative overview of research on the psychology of argumentation.) Another interesting line of research has been the study of the development of reasoning and argumentative skills in young children (Köymen, Mammen, & Tomasello 2016; Köymen & Tomasello 2020).

Mercier and Sperber defend an interactionist account of reasoning, according to which the primary function of reasoning is for social interactions, where reasons are exchanged and receivers of reasons decide whether they find them convincing—in other words, for argumentation (Mercier & Sperber 2017). They review a wealth of evidence suggesting that reasoning is rather flawed when it comes to drawing conclusions from premises in order to expand one’s knowledge. From this they conclude, on the basis of evolutionary arguments, that the function of reasoning must be a different one, indeed one that responds to features of human sociality and the need to exercise epistemic vigilance when receiving information from others. This account has inaugurated a rich research program which they have been pursuing with colleagues for over a decade now, and which has delivered some interesting results—for example, that we seem to be better at evaluating the quality of arguments proposed by others than at formulating high-quality arguments ourselves (Mercier 2018).

In the context of the Bayesian (see entry on Bayes’ theorem ) approach to reasoning that was first developed by Mike Oaksford and Nick Chater in the 1980s (Oaksford & Chater 2018), Hahn and colleagues have extended the Bayesian framework to the investigation of argumentation. They claim that Bayesian probabilities offer an accurate descriptive model of how people evaluate the strength of arguments (Hahn & Oaksford 2007) as well as a solid perspective to address normative questions pertaining to argument strength (Hahn & Oaksford 2006; Hahn & Hornikx 2016). The Bayesian approach allows for the formulation of probabilistic measures of argument strength, showing that many so-called “fallacies” may nevertheless be good arguments in the sense that they considerably raise the probability of the conclusion. For example, deductively invalid argument schemes (such as affirming the consequent (AC) and denying the antecedent (DA)) can also provide considerable support for a conclusion, depending on the contents in question. The extent to which this is the case depends primarily on the specific informational context, captured by the prior probability distribution, not on the structure of the argument. This means that some instances of, say, AC, may offer support to a conclusion while others may fail to do so (Eva & Hartmann 2018). Thus seen, Bayesian argumentation represents a significantly different approach to argumentation from those inspired by logic (e.g., argument schemes), but they are not necessarily incompatible; they may well be complementary perspectives (see also [Zenker 2013]).

Argumentation is primarily (though not exclusively) a linguistic phenomenon. Accordingly, argumentation is extensively studied in fields dedicated to the study of language, such as rhetoric, linguistics, discourse analysis, communication, and pragmatics, among others (see Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: chs 8 and 9). Researchers in these areas develop general theoretical models of argumentation and investigate concrete instances of argumentation in specific domains on the basis of linguistic corpora, discourse analysis, and other methods used in the language sciences (see the edited volume Oswald, Herman, & Jacquin [2018] for a sample of the different lines of research). Overall, research on argumentation within the language sciences tends to focus primarily on concrete occurrences of arguments in a variety of domains, adopting a largely descriptive rather than normative perspective (though some of these researchers also tackle normative considerations).

Some of these analyses approach arguments and argumentation primarily as text or self-contained speeches, while others emphasize the interpersonal, communicative nature of “face-to-face” argumentation (see Eemeren, Garssen, et al. 2014: section 8.9). One prominent approach in this tradition is due to communication scholars Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs. They have drawn on speech act theory and conversation analysis to investigate argumentation as a disagreement-relevant expansion of speech acts that, through mutually recognized reasons, allows us to manage disagreements despite the challenges they pose for communication and coordination of activities (Jackson & Jacobs 1980; Jackson 2019). Moreover, they perceive institutionalized practices of argumentation and concrete “argumentation designs”—such as for example randomized controlled trials in medicine—as interventions aimed at improving methods of disagreement management through argumentation.

Another communication scholar, Dale Hample, has further argued for the importance of approaching argumentation as an essentially interpersonal communicative activity (Hample 2006, 2018). This perspective allows for the consideration of a broader range of factors, not only the arguments themselves but also (and primarily) the people involved in those processes: their motivations, psychological processes, and emotions. It also allows for the formulation of questions pertaining to individual as well as cultural differences in argumentative styles (see section 5.3 below).

Another illuminating perspective views argumentative practices as inherently tied to broader socio-cultural contexts (Amossy 2009). The Journal of Argumentation in Context was founded in 2012 precisely to promote a contextual approach to argumentation. Once argumentation is no longer only considered in abstraction from concrete instances taking place in real-life situations, it becomes imperative to recognize that argumentation does not take place in a vacuum; typically, argumentative practices are embedded in other kinds of practices and institutions, against the background of specific socio-cultural, political structures. The method of discourse analysis is particularly suitable for a broader perspective on argumentation, as shown by the work of Ruth Amossy (2002) and Marianne Doury (2009), among others.

Argumentation is crucial in a number of specific organized social practices, in particular in politics, science, law, and education. The relevant argumentative practices are studied in each of the corresponding knowledge domains; indeed, while some general principles may govern argumentative practices across the board, some may be specific to particular applications and domains.

As already mentioned, argumentation is typically viewed as an essential component of political democratic practices, and as such it is of great interest to political scientists and political theorists (Habermas 1992 [1996]; Young 2000; Landemore 2013; Fishkin 2016; see entry on democracy ). (The term typically used in this context is “deliberation” instead of “argumentation”, but these can be viewed as roughly synonymous for our purposes.) General theories of argumentation such as pragma-dialectic and the Toulmin model can be applied to political argumentation with illuminating results (Wodak 2016; Mohammed 2016). More generally, political discourse seems to have a strong argumentative component, in particular if argumentation is understood more broadly as not only pertaining to rational discourse ( logos ) but as also including what rhetoricians refer to as pathos and ethos (Zarefsky 2014; Amossy 2018). But critics of argumentation and deliberation in political contexts also point out the limitations of the classical deliberative model (Sanders 1997; Talisse 2019).

Moreover, scientific communities seem to offer good examples of (largely) well-functioning argumentative practices. These are disciplined systems of collective epistemic activity, with tacit but widely endorsed norms for argumentative engagement for each domain (which does not mean that there are not disagreements on these very norms). The case of mathematics has already been mentioned above: practices of mathematical proof are quite naturally understood as argumentative practices (Dutilh Novaes 2020a). Furthermore, when a scientist presents a new scientific claim, it must be backed by arguments and evidence that her peers are likely to find convincing, as they follow from the application of widely agreed-upon scientific methods (Longino 1990; Weinstein 1990; Rehg 2008; see entry on the social dimensions of scientific knowledge ). Other scientists will in turn critically examine the evidence and arguments provided, and will voice objections or concerns if they find aspects of the theory to be insufficiently convincing. Thus seen, science may be viewed as a “game of giving and asking for reasons” (Zamora Bonilla 2006). Certain features of scientific argumentation seem to ensure its success: scientists see other scientists as prima facie peers, and so (typically at least) place a fair amount of trust in other scientists by default; science is based on the principle of “organized skepticism” (a term introduced by the pioneer sociologist of science Robert Merton [Merton, 1942]), which means that asking for further reasons should not be perceived as a personal attack. These are arguably aspects that distinguish argumentation in science from argumentation in other domains in virtue of these institutional factors (Mercier & Heintz 2014). But ultimately, scientists are part of society as a whole, and thus the question of how scientific and political argumentation intersect becomes particularly relevant (Kitcher 2001).

Another area where argumentation is essential is the law, which also corresponds to disciplined systems of collective activity with rules and principles for what counts as acceptable arguments and evidence. legal reasoning ).--> In litigation (in particular in adversarial justice systems), there are typically two sides disagreeing on what is lawful or just, and the basic idea is that each side will present its strongest arguments; it is the comparison between the two sets of arguments that should lead to the best judgment (Walton 2002). Legal reasoning and argumentation have been extensively studied within jurisprudence for decades, in particular since Ronald Dworkin’s (1977) and Neil MacCormick’s (1978) responses to HLA Hart’s highly influential The Concept of Law (1961). A number of other views and approaches have been developed, in particular from the perspectives of natural law theory, legal positivism, common law, and rhetoric (see Feteris 2017 for an overview). Overall, legal argumentation is characterized by extensive uses of analogies (Lamond 2014), abduction (Askeland 2020), and defeasible/non-monotonic reasoning (Bex & Verheij 2013). An interesting question is whether argumentation in law is fundamentally different from argumentation in other domains, or whether it follows the same overall canons and norms but applied to legal topics (Raz 2001).

Finally, the development of argumentative skills is arguably a fundamental aspect of (formal) education (Muller Mirza & Perret-Clermont 2009). Ideally, when presented with arguments, a learner should not simply accept what is being said at face value, but should instead reflect on the reasons offered and come to her own conclusions. Argumentation thus fosters independent, critical thinking, which is viewed as an important goal for education (Siegel 1995; see entry on critical thinking ). A number of education theorists and developmental psychologists have empirically investigated the effects of emphasizing argumentative skills in educational settings, with encouraging results (Kuhn & Crowell 2011). There has been in particular much emphasis on argumentation specifically in science education, based on the assumption that argumentation is a key component of scientific practice (as noted above); the thought is that this feature of scientific practice should be reflected in science education (Driver, Newton, & Osborne 2000; Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre 2007).

5. Further Topics

Argumentation is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and the literature on arguments and argumentation is massive and varied. This entry can only scratch the surface of the richness of this material, and many interesting, relevant topics must be left out for reasons of space. In this final section, a selection of topics that are likely to attract considerable interest in future research are discussed.

In recent years, the concept of epistemic injustice has received much attention among philosophers (Fricker 2007; McKinnon 2016). Epistemic injustice occurs when a person is unfairly treated qua knower on the basis of prejudices pertaining to social categories such as gender, race, class, ability etc. (see entry on feminist epistemology and philosophy of science ). One of the main categories of epistemic injustice discussed in the literature pertains to testimony and is known as testimonial injustice : this occurs when a testifier is not given a degree of credibility commensurate to their actual expertise on the relevant topic, as a result of prejudice. (Whether credibility excess is also a form of testimonial injustice is a moot point in the literature [Medina 2011].)

Since argumentation can be viewed as an important mechanism for sharing knowledge and information, i.e., as having significant epistemic import (Goldman 2004), the question arises whether there might be instances of epistemic injustice pertaining specifically to argumentation, which may be described as argumentative injustice , and which would be notably different from other recognized forms of epistemic injustice such as testimonial injustice. Bondy (Bondy 2010) presented a first articulation of the notion of argumentative injustice, modeled after Fricker’s notion of epistemic injustice and relying on a broadly epistemological conception of argumentation. However, Bondy’s analysis does not take into account some of the structural elements that have become central to the analysis of epistemic injustice since Fricker’s influential work, so it seems further discussion of epistemic injustice in argumentation is still needed. For example, in situations of disagreement, epistemic injustice can give rise to further obstacles to rational argumentation, leading to deep disagreement (Lagewaard 2021).

Moreover, as often noted by critics of adversarial approaches, argumentation can also be used as an instrument of domination and oppression used to overpower and denigrate an interlocutor (Nozick 1981), especially an interlocutor of “lower” status in the context in question (Moulton 1983; see entry on feminist approaches to argumentation ). From this perspective, it is clear that argumentation may also be used to reinforce and exacerbate injustice, inequalities and power differentials (Goodwin 2007). Given this possibility, and in response to the perennial risk of excessive aggressiveness in argumentative situations, a normative account of how argumentation ought to be conducted so as to avoid these problematic outcomes seem to be required.

One such approach is virtue argumentation theory . Drawing on virtue ethics and virtue epistemology (see entries on virtue ethics and virtue epistemology ), virtue argumentation theory seeks to theorize how to argue well in terms of the dispositions and character of arguers rather than, for example, in terms of properties of arguments considered in abstraction from arguers (Aberdein & Cohen 2016). Some of the argumentative virtues identified in the literature are: willingness to listen to others (Cohen 2019), willingness to take a novel viewpoint seriously (Kwong 2016), humility (Kidd 2016), and open-mindedness (Tanesini 2020).

By the same token, defective argumentation is conceptualized not (only) in terms of structural properties of arguments (e.g., fallacious argument patterns), but in terms of the vices displayed by arguers such as arrogance and narrow-mindedness, among others (Aberdein 2016). Virtue argumentation theory now constitutes a vibrant research program, as attested by a special issue of Topoi dedicated to the topic (see [Aberdein & Cohen 2016] for its Introduction). It allows for a reconceptualization of classical themes within argumentation theory while also promising to provide concrete recommendations on how to argue better. Whether it can fully counter the risk of epistemic injustice and oppressive uses of argumentation is however debatable, at least as long as broader structural factors related to power dynamics are not sufficiently taken into account (Kukla 2014).

On some idealized construals, argumentation is conceived as a purely rational, emotionless endeavor. But the strong connection between argumentative activities and emotional responses has also long been recognized (in particular in rhetorical analyses of argumentation), and more recently has become the object of extensive research (Walton 1992; Gilbert 2004; Hample 2006: ch. 5). Importantly, the recognition of a role for emotions in argumentation does not entail a complete rejection of the “rationality” of argumentation; rather, it is based on the rejection of a strict dichotomy between reason and emotion (see entry on emotion ), and on a more encompassing conception of argumentation as a multi-layered human activity.

Rather than dispassionate exchanges of reasons, instances of argumentation typically start against the background of existing emotional relations, and give rise to further affective responses—often, though not necessarily, negative responses of aggression and hostility. Indeed, it has been noted that, by itself, argumentation can give rise to conflict and friction where there was none to be found prior to the argumentative engagement (Aikin 2011). This occurs in particular because critical engagement and requests for reasons are at odds with default norms of credulity in most mundane dialogical interactions, thus creating a perception of antagonism. But argumentation may also give rise to positive affective responses if the focus is on coalescence and cooperation rather than on hostility (Gilbert 1997).

The descriptive claim that instances of argumentation are typically emotionally charged is not particularly controversial, though it deserves to be further investigated; the details of affective responses during instances of argumentation and how to deal with them are non-trivial (Krabbe & van Laar 2015). What is potentially more controversial is the normative claim that instances of argumentation may or should be emotionally charged, i.e., that emotions may or ought to be involved in argumentative processes, even if it may be necessary to regulate them in such situations rather than giving them free rein (González, Gómez, & Lemos 2019). The significance of emotions for persuasion has been recognized for millennia (see entry on Aristotle’s rhetoric ), but more recently it has become clear that emotions also have a fundamental role to play for choices of what to focus on and what to care about (Sinhababu 2017). This general point seems to apply to instances of argumentation as well. For example, Howes and Hundleby (Howes & Hundleby 2018) argue that, contrary to what is often thought, anger can in fact make a positive contribution to argumentative encounters. Indeed, anger may have an important epistemological role in such encounters by drawing attention to relevant premises and information that may otherwise go unnoticed. (They recognize that anger may also derail argumentation when the encounter becomes a full-on confrontation.)

In sum, the study of the role of emotions for argumentation, both descriptively and normatively speaking, has attracted the interest of a number of scholars, traditionally in connection with rhetoric and more recently also from the perspective of argumentation as interpersonal communication (Hample 2006). And yet, much work remains to be done on the significance of emotions for argumentation, in particular given that the view that argumentation should be a purely rational, dispassionate endeavor remains widely (even if tacitly) endorsed.

Once we adopt the perspective of argumentation as a communicative practice, the question of the influence of cultural factors on argumentative practices naturally arises. Is there significant variability in how people engage in argumentation depending on their sociocultural backgrounds? Or is argumentation largely the same phenomenon across different cultures? Actually, we may even ask ourselves whether argumentation in fact occurs in all human cultures, or whether it is the product of specific, contingent background conditions, thus not being a human universal. For comparison: it had long been assumed that practices of counting were present in all human cultures, even if with different degrees of complexity. But in recent decades it has been shown that some cultures do not engage systematically in practices of counting and basic arithmetic at all, such as the Pirahã in the Amazon (Gordon 2004; see entry on culture and cognitive science ). By analogy, it seems that the purported universality of argumentative practices should not be taken for granted, but rather be treated as a legitimate empirical question. (Incidentally, there is some anecdotal evidence that the Pirahã themselves engage in argumentative exchanges [Everett 2008], but to date their argumentative skills have not been investigated systematically, as is the case with their numerical skills.)

Of course, how widespread argumentative practices will be also depends on how the concept of “argumentative practices” is defined and operationalized in the first place. If it is narrowly defined as corresponding to regimented practices of reason-giving requiring clear markers and explicit criteria for what counts as premises, conclusions and relations of support between them, then argumentation may well be restricted to cultures and subcultures where such practices have been explicitly codified. By contrast, if argumentation is defined more loosely, then a wider range of communicative practices will be considered as instances of argumentation, and thus presumably more cultures will be found to engage in (what is thus viewed as) argumentation. This means that the spread of argumentative practices across cultures is not only an empirical question; it also requires significant conceptual input to be addressed.

But if (as appears to be the case) argumentation is not a strictly WEIRD phenomenon, restricted to Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan 2010), then the issue of cross-cultural variability in argumentative practices gives rise to a host of research questions, again both at the descriptive and at the normative level. Indeed, even if at the descriptive level considerable variability in argumentative practices is identified, the normative question of whether there should be universally valid canons for argumentation, or instead specific norms for specific contexts, remains pressing. At the descriptive level, a number of researchers have investigated argumentative practices in different WEIRD as well as non-WEIRD cultures, also addressing questions of cultural variability (Hornikx & Hoeken 2007; Hornikx & de Best 2011).

A foundational work in this context is Edwin Hutchins’ 1980 book Culture and Inference , a study of the Trobriand Islanders’ system of land tenure in Papua New Guinea (Hutchins 1980). While presented as a study of inference and reasoning among the Trobriand Islanders, what Hutchins in fact investigated were instances of legal argumentation in land courts by means of ethnographic observation and interviews with litigants. This led to the formulation of a set of twelve basic propositions codifying knowledge about land tenure, as well as transfer formulas governing how this knowledge can be applied to new disputes. Hutchins’ analysis showed that the Trobriand Islanders had a sophisticated argumentation system to resolve issues pertaining to land tenure, in many senses resembling argumentation and reasoning in so-called WEIRD societies in that it seemed to recognize as valid simple logical structures such as modus ponens and modus tollens .

More recently, Hugo Mercier and colleagues have been conducting studies in countries such as Japan (Mercier, Deguchi, Van der Henst, & Yama 2016) and Guatemala (Castelain, Girotto, Jamet, & Mercier 2016). While recognizing the significance and interest of cultural differences (Mercier 2013), Mercier maintains that argumentation is a human universal, as argumentative capacities and tendencies are a result of natural selection, genetically encoded in human cognition (Mercier 2011; Mercier & Sperber 2017). He takes the results of the cross-cultural studies conducted so far as confirming the universality of argumentation, even considering cultural differences (Mercier 2018).

Another scholar who has been carrying out an extensive research program on cultural differences in argumentation is communication theorist Dale Hample. With different sets of colleagues, he has conducted studies by means of surveys where participants (typically, university undergraduates) self-report on their argumentative practices in countries such as China, Japan, Turkey, Chile, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United States (among others; Hample 2018: ch. 7). His results overall show a number of similarities, which may be partially explained by the specific demographic (university students) from which participants are usually recruited. But interesting differences have also been identified, for example different levels of willingness to engage in argumentative encounters.

In a recent book (Tindale 2021), philosopher Chris Tindale adopts an anthropological perspective to investigate how argumentative practices emerge from the experiences of peoples with diverse backgrounds. He emphasizes the argumentative roles of place, orality, myth, narrative, and audience, also assessing the impacts of colonialism on the study of argumentation. Tindale reviews a wealth of anthropological and ethnographic studies on argumentative practices in different cultures, thus providing what is to date perhaps the most comprehensive study on argumentation from an anthropological perspective.

On the whole, the study of differences and commonalities in argumentative practices across cultures is an established line of research on argumentation, but arguably much work remains to be done to investigate these complex phenomena more thoroughly.

So far we have not yet considered the question of the different media through which argumentation can take place. Naturally, argumentation can unfold orally in face-to-face encounters—discussions in parliament, political debates, in a court of law—as well as in writing—in scientific articles, on the Internet, in newspaper editorials. Moreover, it can happen synchronically, with real-time exchanges of reasons, or asynchronically. While it is reasonable to expect that there will be some commonalities across these different media and environments, it is also plausible that specific features of different environments may significantly influence how argumentation is conducted: different environments present different kinds of affordances for arguers (Halpern & Gibbs 2013; Weger & Aakhus 2003; see entry on embodied cognition for the concept of affordance). Indeed, if the Internet represents a fundamentally novel cognitive ecology (Smart, Heersmink, & Clowes 2017), then it will likely give rise to different forms of argumentative engagement (Lewiński 2010). Whether these new forms will represent progress (according to some suitable metric) is however a moot point.

In the early days of the Internet in the 1990s, there was much hope that online spaces would finally realize the Habermasian ideal of a public sphere for political deliberation (Hindman 2009). The Internet was supposed to act as the great equalizer in the worldwide marketplace of ideas, finally attaining the Millian ideal of free exchange of ideas (Mill 1859). Online, everyone’s voice would have an equal chance of being heard, everyone could contribute to the conversation, and everyone could simultaneously be a journalist, news consumer, engaged citizen, advocate, and activist.

A few decades later, these hopes have not really materialized. It is probably true that most people now argue more —in social media, blogs, chat rooms, discussion boards etc.—but it is much less obvious that they argue better . Indeed, rather than enhancing democratic ideals, some have gone as far as claiming that instead, the Internet is “killing democracy” (Bartlett 2018). There is very little oversight when it comes to the spreading of propaganda and disinformation online (Benkler, Faris, & Roberts 2018), which means that citizens are often being fed faulty information and arguments. Moreover, it seems that online environments may lead to increased polarization when polemic topics are being discussed (Yardi & Boyd 2010), and to “intellectual arrogance” (Lynch 2019). Some have argued that online discussions lead to more overly emotional engagement when compared to other forms of debate (Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock 2014). But not everyone is convinced that the Internet has only made things worse when it comes to argumentation, or in any case that it cannot be suitably redesigned so as to foster rather than destroy democratic ideals and deliberation (Sunstein 2017).

Be that as it may, the Internet is here to stay, and online argumentation is a pervasive phenomenon that argumentation theorists have been studying and will continue to study for years to come. In fact, if anything, online argumentation is now more often investigated empirically than other forms of argumentation, among other reasons thanks to the development of argument mining techniques (see section 4.2 above) which greatly facilitate the study of large corpora of textual material such as those produced by online discussions. Beyond the very numerous specific case studies available in the literature, there have been also attempts to reflect on the phenomenon of online argumentation in general, for example in journal special issues dedicated to argumentation in digital media such as in Argumentation and Advocacy (Volume 47(2), 2010) and Philosophy & Technology (Volume 30(2), 2017). However, a systematic analysis of online argumentation and how it differs from other forms of argumentation remains to be produced.

Argument and argumentation are multifaceted phenomena that have attracted the interest of philosophers as well as scholars in other fields for millennia, and continue to be studied extensively in various domains. This entry presents an overview of the main strands in these discussions, while acknowledging the impossibility of fully doing justice to the enormous literature on the topic. But the literature references below should at least provide a useful starting point for the interested reader.

• Aberdein, Andrew, 2016, “The Vices of Argument”, Topoi , 35(2): 413–422. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9346-z
• Aberdein, Andrew and Daniel H. Cohen, 2016, “Introduction: Virtues and Arguments”, Topoi , 35(2): 339–343. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9366-3
• Aberdein, Andrew and Ian J Dove (eds.), 2013, The Argument of Mathematics , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6534-4
• Aikin, Scott, 2011, “A Defense of War and Sport Metaphors in Argument”, Philosophy & Rhetoric , 44(3): 250–272.
• Amossy, Ruth, 2002, “How to Do Things with Doxa: Toward an Analysis of Argumentation in Discourse”, Poetics Today , 23(3): 465–487. doi:10.1215/03335372-23-3-465
• –––, 2009, “Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-Discursive Approach to Arguments”, Informal Logic , 29(3): 252–267. doi:10.22329/il.v29i3.2843
• –––, 2018, “Understanding Political Issues through Argumentation Analysis”, in The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics , Ruth Wodak and Bernard Forchtner (eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 135–149.
• Askeland, Bjarte, 2020, “The Potential of Abductive Legal Reasoning”, Ratio Juris , 33(1): 66–81. doi:10.1111/raju.12268
• Atkinson, Katie, Federico Cerutti, Peter McBurney, Simon Parsons, and Iyad Rahwan (eds), 2016, Special Issue on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems , of Argument & Computation , 7(2–3).
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2016, “DAMed If You Do; DAMed If You Don’t: Cohen’s ‘Missed Opportunities’”, in Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference , Vol. 11. [ Bailin and Battersby 2016 available online ]
• Ball, Linden J and Valerie A. Thompson (eds.), 2018, International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315725697
• Bartlett, Jamie, 2018, The People vs Tech: How the Internet is Killing Democracy (and How We Can Save It) , London: Ebury Press.
• Beall, Jc, 2009, Spandrels of Truth , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268733.001.0001
• Benkler, Yochai, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts, 2018, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001
• Bermejo Luque, Lilian, 2011, Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory (Argumentation Library 20), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1761-9
• –––, 2020, “What Is Wrong with Deductivism?”, Informal Logic , 40(3): 295–316. doi:10.22329/il.v40i30.6214
• Betz, Gregor, 2013, Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5
• Bex, Floris, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed, and Douglas Walton, 2003, “Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations”, Artificial Intelligence and Law , 11(2/3): 125–165. doi:10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a
• Bex, Floris and Bart Verheij, 2013, “Legal Stories and the Process of Proof”, Artificial Intelligence and Law , 21(3): 253–278. doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9137-4
• Biro, John and Harvey Siegel, 2006, “In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 26(1): 91–101. doi:10.22329/il.v26i1.432
• Bondy, Patrick, 2010, “Argumentative Injustice”, Informal Logic , 30(3): 263–278. doi:10.22329/il.v30i3.3034
• Brandom, Robert B., 1994, Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Campos, Daniel G., 2011, “On the Distinction between Peirce’s Abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation”, Synthese , 180(3): 419–442. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3
• Casey, John, 2020, “Adversariality and Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 40(1): 77–108. doi:10.22329/il.v40i1.5969
• Castelain, Thomas, Vittorio Girotto, Frank Jamet, and Hugo Mercier, 2016, “Evidence for Benefits of Argumentation in a Mayan Indigenous Population”, Evolution and Human Behavior , 37(5): 337–342. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.02.002
• Clark, Andy, 2016, Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217013.001.0001
• Cohen, Daniel H., 1995, “Argument Is War…and War Is Hell: Philosophy, Education, and Metaphors for Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 17(2): 177–188. doi:10.22329/il.v17i2.2406
• –––, 2019, “Argumentative Virtues as Conduits for Reason’s Causal Efficacy: Why the Practice of Giving Reasons Requires That We Practice Hearing Reasons”, Topoi , 38(4): 711–718. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9364-x
• Collins, Peter J. and Ulrike Hahn, 2018, “Fallacies of Argumentation”, in Ball and Thomson 2018: 88–108.
• Doury, Marianne, 2009, “Argument Schemes Typologies in Practice: The Case of Comparative Arguments”, in Pondering on Problems of Argumentation , Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (eds.), (Argumentation Library 14), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 141–155. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_11
• Driver, Rosalind, Paul Newton, and Jonathan Osborne, 2000, “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms”, Science Education , 84(3): 287–312.
• Dummett, Michael, 1978, “The Justification of Deduction”, in his Truth and Other Enigmas , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 290–318.
• Dung, Phan Minh, 1995, “On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n -Person Games”, Artificial Intelligence , 77(2): 321–357. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
• Dutilh Novaes, Catarina, 2015, “The Formal and the Formalized: The Cases of Syllogistic and Supposition Theory”, Kriterion: Revista de Filosofia , 56(131): 253–270. doi:10.1590/0100-512X2015n13114cdn
• –––, 2020a, The Dialogical Roots of Deduction: Historical, Cognitive, and Philosophical Perspectives on Reasoning , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108800792
• –––, 2020b, “Logic and the Psychology of Reasoning”, in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism , Martin Kusch (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 445–454.
• –––, 2020c, “The Role of Trust in Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 40(2): 205–236. doi:10.22329/il.v40i2.6328
• –––, forthcoming, “Who’s Afraid of Adversariality? Conflict and Cooperation in Argumentation”, Topoi , first online: 23 December 2020. doi:10.1007/s11245-020-09736-9
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1977, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst, 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion , Dordrecht: Foris Publications. doi:10.1515/9783110846089
• –––, 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511616389
• Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M. Wagemans, 2014, Handbook of Argumentation Theory , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5
• Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Ralph H. Johnson, Christian Plantin, and Charles A. Willard, 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments , Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203811306
• Elqayam, Shira, 2018, “The New Paradigm in Psychology of Reasoning”, in Ball and Thomson 2018: 130–150.
• Erduran, Sibel and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), 2007, Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (Science & Technology Education Library 35), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2
• Eva, Benjamin and Stephan Hartmann, 2018, “Bayesian Argumentation and the Value of Logical Validity”, Psychological Review , 125(5): 806–821. doi:10.1037/rev0000114
• Everett, Daniel Leonard, 2008, Don’t Sleep! There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle , New York, NY: Vintage Books.
• Fantl, Jeremy, 2018, The Limitations of the Open Mind , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198807957.001.0001
• Feteris, Eveline T., 2017, Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions , second edition, (Argumentation Library 1), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4
• Field, Hartry, 2008, Saving Truth From Paradox , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230747.001.0001
• Fisher, Matthew and Frank C. Keil, 2016, “The Trajectory of Argumentation and Its Multifaceted Functions”, in Paglieri, Bonelli, and Felletti 2016: 347–362.
• Fishkin, James, 2016, “Deliberative Democracy”, in Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences , Robert A. Scott and Marlis C. Buchmann, New York: Wiley.
• Fogelin, Robert, 1985, “The Logic of Deep Disagreements”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 3–11. doi:10.22329/il.v7i1.2696
• Fraassen, Bas C. van, 1989, Laws and Symmetry , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198248601.001.0001
• Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
• Geuss, Raymond, 2019, “A Republic of Discussion: Habermas at Ninety”, The Point Magazine , 18 June 2019. [ Geuss 2019 available online ]
• Gilbert, Michael A., 1994, “Feminism, Argumentation and Coalescence”, Informal Logic , 16(2): 95–113. doi:10.22329/il.v16i2.2444
• –––, 1997, Coalescent Argumentation , Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• –––, 2004, “Emotion, Argumentation and Informal Logic”, Informal Logic , 24(3): 245–264. doi:10.22329/il.v24i3.2147
• Goldman, Alvin I., 1994, “Argumentation and Social Epistemology”, Journal of Philosophy , 91(1): 27–49. doi:10.2307/2940949
• –––, 2004, “An Epistemological Approach to Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 23(1): 49–61. doi:10.22329/il.v23i1.2153
• González González, Manuela, Julder Gómez, and Mariantonia Lemos, 2019, “Theoretical Considerations for the Articulation of Emotion and Argumentation in the Arguer: A Proposal for Emotion Regulation in Deliberation”, Argumentation , 33(3): 349–364. doi:10.1007/s10503-018-09476-6
• Goodwin, Jean, 2007, “Argument Has No Function”, Informal Logic , 27(1): 69–90. doi:10.22329/il.v27i1.465
• Gordon, Peter, 2004, “Numerical Cognition Without Words: Evidence from Amazonia”, Science , 306(5695): 496–499. doi:10.1126/science.1094492
• Gordon-Smith, Eleanor, 2019, Stop Being Reasonable: How We Really Change Minds , New York: Public Affairs.
• Govier, Trudy, 1999, The Philosophy of Argument , Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1981 [1984], Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd. 1, Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society , Thomas McCarthy (trans.), Boston: Beacon Press.
• –––, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Habernal, Ivan and Iryna Gurevych, 2017, “Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse”, Computational Linguistics , 43(1): 125–179. doi:10.1162/COLI_a_00276
• Hahn, Ulrike and Jos Hornikx, 2016, “A Normative Framework for Argument Quality: Argumentation Schemes with a Bayesian Foundation”, Synthese , 193(6): 1833–1873. doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0815-0
• Hahn, Ulrike and Mike Oaksford, 2006, “A Normative Theory of Argument Strength”, Informal Logic , 26(1): 1–24. doi:10.22329/il.v26i1.428
• –––, 2007, “The Rationality of Informal Argumentation: A Bayesian Approach to Reasoning Fallacies”, Psychological Review , 114(3): 704–732. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704
• Halpern, Daniel and Jennifer Gibbs, 2013, “Social Media as a Catalyst for Online Deliberation? Exploring the Affordances of Facebook and YouTube for Political Expression”, Computers in Human Behavior , 29(3): 1159–1168. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008
• Hamblin, C. L., 1970, Fallacies , London: Methuen.
• Hample, Dale, 2006, Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781410613486
• –––, 2018, Interpersonal Arguing , New York: Peter Lang.
• Harman, Gilbert H., 1965, “The Inference to the Best Explanation”, The Philosophical Review , 74(1): 88–95. doi:10.2307/2183532
• Hart, H. L. A., 1961, The Concept of Law , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan, 2010, “The Weirdest People in the World?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33(2–3): 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
• Hindman, Matthew, 2009, The Myth of Digital Democracy , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Hintikka, Jaakko and Gabriel Sandu, 1997, “Game-Theoretical Semantics”, in Handbook of Logic and Language , Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 361–410.
• Hitchcock, David, 2007, “Informal Logic and the Concept of Argument”, in Philosophy of Logic , Dale Jacquette (ed.), Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 101–129.
• Hornikx, Jos and Judith de Best, 2011, “Persuasive Evidence in India: An Investigation of the Impact of Evidence Types and Evidence Quality”, Argumentation and Advocacy , 47(4): 246–257. doi:10.1080/00028533.2011.11821750
• Hornikx, Jos and Ulrike Hahn, 2012, “Reasoning and Argumentation: Towards an Integrated Psychology of Argumentation”, Thinking & Reasoning , 18(3): 225–243. doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.674715
• Hornikx, Jos and Hans Hoeken, 2007, “Cultural Differences in the Persuasiveness of Evidence Types and Evidence Quality”, Communication Monographs , 74(4): 443–463. doi:10.1080/03637750701716578
• Howes, Moira and Catherine Hundleby, 2018, “The Epistemology of Anger in Argumentation”, Symposion , 5(2): 229–254. doi:10.5840/symposion20185218
• Howson, Colin, 2000, Hume’s Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198250371.001.0001
• Hundleby, Catherine, 2013, “Aggression, Politeness, and Abstract Adversaries”, Informal Logic , 33(2): 238–262. doi:10.22329/il.v33i2.3895
• Hutchins, Edwin, 1980, Culture and Inference: A Trobriand Case Study , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Irani, Tushar, 2017, Plato on the Value of Philosophy: The Art of Argument in the ‘Gorgias’ and ‘Phaedrus’ , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316855621
• Isenberg, Daniel J., 1986, “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50(6): 1141–1151. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141
• Jackson, Sally, 2019, “Reason-Giving and the Natural Normativity of Argumentation”, Topoi , 38(4): 631–643. doi:10.1007/s11245-018-9553-5
• Jackson, Sally and Scott Jacobs, 1980, “Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme”, Quarterly Journal of Speech , 66(3): 251–265. doi:10.1080/00335638009383524
• Johnson, Ralph Henry and J. Anthony Blair, 1977, Logical Self-Defense , Toronto: McGraw Hill-Ryerson.
• Jorgensen Bolinger, Renée, 2021, “Demographic Statistics in Defensive Decisions”, Synthese , 198(5): 4833–4850. doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02372-w
• Josephson, John R. and Susan G. Josephson (eds.), 1994, Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511530128
• Kahan, Dan M., 2017, Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition , Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper 164, Yale Law School Public Law Research Paper 605; Yale Law & Economics Research Paper 575. [ Kahan 2017 available online ]
• Kaplan, David, 1989, “Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and other Indexicals”, in Themes From Kaplan , Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Howard Wettstein, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563.
• Keil, Frank C., 2006, “Explanation and Understanding”, Annual Review of Psychology , 57: 227–254. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100
• Kidd, Ian James, 2016, “Intellectual Humility, Confidence, and Argumentation”, Topoi , 35(2): 395–402. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9324-5
• –––, 2020, “Martial Metaphors and Argumentative Virtues and Vices”, in Polarisation, Arrogance, and Dogmatism: Philosophical Perspectives , Alessandra Tanesini and Michael Lynch, London: Routledge, pp. 25–38.
• Kitcher, Philip, 2001, Science, Truth, and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195145836.001.0001
• Köymen, Bahar, Maria Mammen, and Michael Tomasello, 2016, “Preschoolers Use Common Ground in Their Justificatory Reasoning with Peers”, Developmental Psychology , 52(3): 423–429. doi:10.1037/dev0000089
• Köymen, Bahar and Michael Tomasello, 2020, “The Early Ontogeny of Reason Giving”, Child Development Perspectives , 14(4): 215–220. doi:10.1111/cdep.12384
• Krabbe, Erik C. W. and Jan Albert van Laar, 2015, “That’s No Argument! The Dialectic of Non-Argumentation”, Synthese , 192(4): 1173–1197. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0609-9
• Kramer, Adam D. I., Jamie E. Guillory, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, 2014, “Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(24): 8788–8790. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111
• Kuhn, Deanna and Amanda Crowell, 2011, “Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking”, Psychological Science , 22(4): 545–552. doi:10.1177/0956797611402512
• Kukla, Quill Rebecca, 2014, “Performative Force, Convention, and Discursive Injustice”, Hypatia , 29(2): 440–457. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01316.x
• Kwong, Jack M. C., 2016, “Open-Mindedness as a Critical Virtue”, Topoi , 35(2): 403–411. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9317-4
• Lagewaard, T. J., 2021, “Epistemic Injustice and Deepened Disagreement”, Philosophical Studies , 178(5): 1571–1592. doi:10.1007/s11098-020-01496-x
• Lamond, Grant, 2014, “Analogical Reasoning in the Common Law”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 34(3): 567–588. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqu014
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lewiński, Marcin, 2010, “Collective Argumentative Criticism in Informal Online Discussion Forums”, Argumentation and Advocacy , 47(2): 86–105. doi:10.1080/00028533.2010.11821740
• Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus, 2014, “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry”, Argumentation , 28(2): 161–185. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x
• Lewiński, Marcin and Dima Mohammed, 2016, “Argumentation Theory”, in The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy , Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Robert T. Craig, Jefferson Pooley, and Eric W. Rothenbuhler (eds.), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198
• Lipton, Peter, 1971 [2003], Inference to the Best Explanation , London: Routledge. Second edition, 2003. doi:10.4324/9780203470855
• Lombrozo, Tania, 2007, “Simplicity and Probability in Causal Explanation”, Cognitive Psychology , 55(3): 232–257. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.006
• Longino, Helen E., 1990, Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lorenzen, Paul and Kuno Lorenz, 1978, Dialogische Logik , Darmstadt: Wissenschafstliche Buchgesellschaft.
• Lumer, Christoph, 2005, “Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation—A Map”, Informal Logic , 25(3): 189–212. doi:10.22329/il.v25i3.1134
• Lynch, Michael Patrick, 2019, Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture , New York, NY: Liveright.
• Mäs, Michael and Andreas Flache, 2013, “Differentiation without Distancing. Explaining Bi-Polarization of Opinions without Negative Influence”, PLoS ONE , 8(11): e74516. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074516
• MacCormick, Neil, 1978, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Mackenzie, Jim, 1989, “Reasoning and Logic”, Synthese , 79(1): 99–117. doi:10.1007/BF00873257
• Massey, Gerald J., 1981, “The Fallacy behind Fallacies”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 6: 489–500. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1981.tb00454.x
• McKinnon, Rachel, 2016, “Epistemic Injustice”, Philosophy Compass , 11(8): 437–446. doi:10.1111/phc3.12336
• Medina, José, 2011, “The Relevance of Credibility Excess in a Proportional View of Epistemic Injustice: Differential Epistemic Authority and the Social Imaginary”, Social Epistemology , 25(1): 15–35. doi:10.1080/02691728.2010.534568
• Mercier, Hugo, 2011, “On the Universality of Argumentative Reasoning”, Journal of Cognition and Culture , 11(1–2): 85–113. doi:10.1163/156853711X568707
• –––, 2013, “Introduction: Recording and Explaining Cultural Differences in Argumentation”, Journal of Cognition and Culture , 13(5): 409–417. doi:10.1163/15685373-12342101
• –––, 2018, “Reasoning and Argumentation”, in Ball and Thomson 2018: 401–414.
• Mercier, Hugo and Christophe Heintz, 2014, “Scientists’ Argumentative Reasoning”, Topoi , 33(2): 513–524. doi:10.1007/s11245-013-9217-4
• Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber, 2017, The Enigma of Reason , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Mercier, Hugo, M. Deguchi, J.-B. Van der Henst, and H. Yama, 2016, “The Benefits of Argumentation Are Cross-Culturally Robust: The Case of Japan”, Thinking & Reasoning , 22(1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/13546783.2014.1002534
• Merton, Robert, 1942, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1859, On Liberty , London: John W. Parker and Son. Reprinted Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999.
• Mohammed, Dima, 2016, “Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments”, Argumentation , 30(3): 221–245. doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6
• Mouffe, Chantal, 1999, “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?”, Social Research , 66(3): 745–758.
• –––, 2000, The Democratic Paradox , London: Verso.
• Moulton, Janice, 1983, “A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method”, in Discovering Reality , Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka (eds.), (Synthese Library 161), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 149–164. doi:10.1007/0-306-48017-4_9
• Muller Mirza, Nathalie and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont (eds.), 2009, Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices , Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3
• Nelson, Michael and Edward N. Zalta, 2012, “A Defense of Contingent Logical Truths”, Philosophical Studies , 157(1): 153–162. doi:10.1007/s11098-010-9624-y
• Netz, Reviel, 1999, The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics: A Study in Cognitive History , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511543296
• Nguyen, C. Thi, 2020, “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles”, Episteme , 17(2): 141–161. doi:10.1017/epi.2018.32
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Norman, Andy, 2016, “Why We Reason: Intention-Alignment and the Genesis of Human Rationality”, Biology & Philosophy , 31(5): 685–704. doi:10.1007/s10539-016-9532-4
• Norton, John D., 2003, “A Material Theory of Induction”, Philosophy of Science , 70(4): 647–670. doi:10.1086/378858
• Nozick, Robert, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Oaksford, Mike and Nick Chater, 2018, “Probabilities and Bayesian Rationality”, in Ball and Thomson 2018: 415–433.
• Olson, Kevin, 2011 [2014], “Deliberative Democracy”, in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts , Barbara Fultner (ed.), Durham, UK: Acument; reprinted London: Routledge, 2014, pp. 140–155.
• Olsson, Erik J., 2013, “A Bayesian Simulation Model of Group Deliberation and Polarization”, in Zenker 2013: 113–133. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5357-0_6
• Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin (eds.), 2018, Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations (Argumentation Library 32), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4
• Paglieri, Fabio, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felletti, 2016, The Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion , London: College Publications.
• Patterson, Steven W, 2011, “Functionalism, Normativity and the Concept of Argumentation”, Informal Logic , 31(1): 1–26. doi:10.22329/il.v31i1.3013
• Peldszus, Andreas and Manfred Stede, 2013, “From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in Texts: A Survey”, International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence , 7(1): 1–31. doi:10.4018/jcini.2013010101
• Perelman, Chaim and Lucia Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1958 [1969], Traité de l’argumentation; la nouvelle rhétorique , Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Translated as The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (trans), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
• Pollock, John L., 1987, “Defeasible Reasoning”, Cognitive Science , 11(4): 481–518. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
• Prakken, Henry and Giovanni Sartor, 2015, “Law and Logic: A Review from an Argumentation Perspective”, Artificial Intelligence , 227(October): 214–245. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.06.005
• Rahwan, Iyad and Guillermo Simari (eds.), 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence , Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0
• Raz, J., 2001, “Reasoning with Rules”, Current Legal Problems , 54(1): 1–18. doi:10.1093/clp/54.1.1
• Rehg, William, 2008, Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Reiter, R., 1980, “A Logic for Default Reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence , 13(1–2): 81–132. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4
• Restall, Greg, 2004, “Logical Pluralism and the Preservation of Warrant”, in Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science , Shahid Rahman, John Symons, Dov M. Gabbay, and Jean Paul van Bendegem (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 163–173. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-2808-3_10
• Rooney, Phyllis, 2012, “When Philosophical Argumentation Impedes Social and Political Progress”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 43(3): 317–333. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2012.01568.x
• Sanders, Lynn M., 1997, “Against Deliberation”, Political Theory , 25(3): 347–376. doi:10.1177/0090591797025003002
• Schmitt, Carl, 1922 [2005], Politische Theologie: Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität , München Und Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Part translated as Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty , George Schwab (trans.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Translation reprinted 2005.
• Schotch, Peter K., Bryson Brown, and Raymond E. Jennings (eds.), 2009, On Preserving: Essays on Preservationism and Paraconsistent Logic , (Toronto Studies in Philosophy), Toronto/Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.
• Sequoiah-Grayson, Sebastian, 2008, “The Scandal of Deduction: Hintikka on the Information Yield of Deductive Inferences”, Journal of Philosophical Logic , 37(1): 67–94. doi:10.1007/s10992-007-9060-4
• Shapiro, Stewart, 2005, “Logical Consequence, Proof Theory, and Model Theory”, in Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic , Stewart Shapiro (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 651–670.
• –––, 2014, Varieties of Logic , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696529.001.0001
• Siegel, Harvey, 1995, “Why Should Educators Care about Argumentation?”, Informal Logic , 17(2): 159–176. doi:10.22329/il.v17i2.2405
• Sinhababu, Neil, 2017, Humean Nature: How Desire Explains Action, Thought, and Feeling , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198783893.001.0001
• Sklar, Elizabeth I. and Mohammad Q. Azhar, 2018, “Explanation through Argumentation”, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction , Southampton, UK: ACM, pp. 277–285. doi:10.1145/3284432.3284470
• Smart, Paul, Richard Heersmink, and Robert W. Clowes, 2017, “The Cognitive Ecology of the Internet”, in Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interactivity and Human Artifice , Stephen J. Cowley and Frédéric Vallée-Tourangeau (eds.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 251–282. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49115-8_13
• Sober, Elliott, 2015, Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107705937
• Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson, 2010, “Epistemic Vigilance”, Mind & Language , 25(4): 359–393. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
• Stebbing, Lizzie Susan, 1939, Thinking to Some Purpose , Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Sunstein, Cass R., 2002, “The Law of Group Polarization”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 10(2): 175–195. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00148
• –––, 2017, #republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Taber, Charles S. and Milton Lodge, 2006, “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs”, American Journal of Political Science , 50(3): 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
• Talisse, Robert B., 2019, Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190924195.001.0001
• Tanesini, Alessandra, 2020, “Arrogance, Polarisation and Arguing to Win”, in Tanesini and Lynch 2020: 158–174.
• Tanesini, Alessandra and Michael P. Lynch (eds.), 2020, Polarisation, Arrogance, and Dogmatism: Philosophical Perspectives , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429291395
• Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 1971, “A Defense of Abortion”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1(1): 47–66.
• Tindale, Christopher W., 2007, Fallacies and Argument Appraisal , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511806544
• –––, 2021, The Anthropology of Argument: Cultural Foundations of Rhetoric and Reason , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003107637
• Tomasello, Michael, 2014, A Natural History of Human Thinking , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen E., 1958 [2003], The Uses of Argument , Cambridge University Press. Second edition, 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005
• Van Laar, Jan Albert and Erik C. W. Krabbe, 2019, “Pressure and Argumentation in Public Controversies”, Informal Logic , 39(3): 205–227. doi:10.22329/il.v39i3.5739
• Walton, Douglas N., 1992, The Place of Emotion in Argument , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• –––, 2002, Legal Argumentation and Evidence , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Walton, Douglas N. and Erik C.W. Krabbe, 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Walton, Douglas N., Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno, 2008, Argumentation Schemes , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802034
• Weger, Harry, Jr., and Mark Aakhus, 2003, “Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance”, Argumentation and Advocacy , 40(1): 23–38. doi:10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards an Account of Argumentation in Science”, Argumentation , 4(3): 269–298. doi:10.1007/BF00173968
• Wenman, Mark, 2013, Agonistic Democracy: Constituent Power in the Era of Globalisation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511777158
• Williamson, Timothy, 2018, Doing Philosophy: From Common Curiosity to Logical Reasoning , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wodak, Ruth, 2016, “Argumentation, Political”, in The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication , Gianpietro Mazzoleni (ed.), London: Blackwell, 9 pages.
• Yardi, Sarita and Danah Boyd, 2010, “Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter”, Bulletin of Science , Technology & Society, 30(5): 316–327. doi:10.1177/0270467610380011
• Young, Iris Marion, 2000, Inclusion and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198297556.001.0001
• Zamora Bonilla, Jesús, 2006, “Science as a Persuasion Game: An Inferentialist Approach”, Episteme , 2(3): 189–201. doi:10.3366/epi.2005.2.3.189
• Zarefsky, David, 2014, Political Argumentation in the United States , Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Zenker, Frank (ed.), 2013, Bayesian Argumentation: The Practical Side of Probability , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5357-0
• Angelelli, Ignacio, 1970, “The Techniques of Disputation in the History of Logic”, The Journal of Philosophy , 67(20): 800–815. doi:10.2307/2024013
• Ashworth, E. J., 2011, “The scope of logic: Soto and Fonseca on dialectic and informal arguments”, in Methods and Methodologies: Aristotelian Logic East and West, 500–1500 , Margaret Cameron and John Marenbon, Leiden: Brill, pp. 127–145.
• Bazán, B. C., J. W. Wippel, G. Fransen, and D. Jacquart, 1985, Les Questions Disputées et Les Questions Quodlibétiques dans les Facultés de Théologie, de Droit et de Médecine , Turnhout: Brepols.
• Castelnérac, Benoît and Mathieu Marion, 2009, “Arguing for Inconsistency: Dialectical Games in the Academy”, in Acts of Knowledge: History, Philosophy and Logic , Giuseppe Primiero and Shahid Rahman (eds), London: College Publications, pp. 37–76.
• DiPasquale, David M., 2019, Alfarabi’s “Book of Dialectic (Kitāb al-Jadal)”: On the Starting Point of Islamic Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108277822
• Duncombe, Matthew and Catarina Dutilh Novaes, 2016, “Dialectic and logic in Aristotle and his tradition”, History and Philosophy of Logic , 37: 1–8.
• Dutilh Novaes, Catarina, 2017, “What is logic?”, Aeon Magazine , 12 January 2017. [ Dutilh Novaes 2017 available online ]
• –––, 2020, The Dialogical Roots of Deduction: Historical, Cognitive, and Philosophical Perspectives on Reasoning , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108800792
• El-Rouayheb, Khaled, 2016, “Arabic Logic after Avicenna”, in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Logic , Catarina Dutilh Novaes and Stephen Read (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–93. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107449862.004
• Fink, Jakob L., 2012, “Introduction”, in The Development of Dialectic from Plato to Aristotle , Jakob Leth Fink (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511997969.001
• Fraser, Chris, 2013, “Distinctions, Judgment, and Reasoning in Classical Chinese Thought”, History and Philosophy of Logic , 34(1): 1–24. doi:10.1080/01445340.2012.724927
• Ganeri, Dr Jonardon, 2001, “Introduction: Indian Logic and the Colonization of Reason”, in his Indian Logic: A Reader , London: Routledge, pp. 1–25.
• Hansen, Chad, 1983, Language and Logic in Ancient China , Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Hansen, Mogens Herman, 1977–88 [1991], Det Athenske Demokrati . Revised and translated as The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology , J.A. Crook (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
• Irani, Tushar, 2017, Plato on the Value of Philosophy: The Art of Argument in the “Gorgias” and “Phaedrus” , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316855621
• Matilal, Bimal Krishna, 1998, The Character of Logic in India , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Miller, Larry Benjamin, 2020, Islamic Disputation Theory: The Uses & Rules of Argument in Medieval Islam , (Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning 21), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0
• Nauta, Lodi, 2009, In Defense of Common Sense: Lorenzo Valla’s Humanist Critique of Scholastic Philosophy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Nicholson, Hugh, 2010, “The Shift from Agonistic to Non-Agonistic Debate in Early Nyāya”, Journal of Indian Philosophy , 38(1): 75–95. doi:10.1007/s10781-009-9081-0
• Notomi, Noburu, 2014, “The Sophists”, in Routledge Companion to Ancient Philosophy , Frisbee Sheffield and James Warren (eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 94–110.
• Novikoff, Alex J., 2013, The Medieval Culture of Disputation: Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance , Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Phillips, Stephen H., 2017, “Fallacies and Defeaters in Early Navya Nyaya”, Indian Epistemology and Metaphysics , Joerg Tuske (ed.), London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 33–52.
• Prets, Ernst, 2001, “Futile and False Rejoinders, Sophistical Arguments and Early Indian Logic”, Journal of Indian Philosophy , 29(5/6): 545–558. doi:10.1023/A:1013894810880
• Siderits, Mark, 2003, “Deductive, Inductive, Both or Neither?”, Journal of Indian Philosophy , 31(1/3): 303–321. doi:10.1023/A:1024691426770
• Solomon, Esther Abraham, 1976, Indian Dialectics: Methods of Philosophical Discussion , Ahmedabad: B.J. Institute of Learning and Research.
• Taber, John A., 2004, “Is Indian Logic Nonmonotonic?”, Philosophy East and West , 54(2): 143–170. doi:10.1353/pew.2004.0009
• Wolfsdorf, David, 2013, “Socratic Philosophizing”, in The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates , John Bussanich and Nicholas D. Smith (eds.), London; New York: Continuum, pp. 34–67.
• Young, Walter Edward, 2017, The Dialectical Forge , (Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning 9), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25522-4

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

abduction | analogy: medieval theories of | analogy and analogical reasoning | Aristotle | Aristotle, General Topics: logic | Aristotle, General Topics: rhetoric | Bacon, Francis | Bayes’ Theorem | bias, implicit | Chinese Philosophy: logic and language in Early Chinese Philosophy | Chinese Philosophy: Mohism | Chinese Philosophy: Mohist Canons | Chinese room argument | cognition: embodied | critical thinking | Curry’s paradox | democracy | emotion | epistemology: virtue | ethics: virtue | fallacies | feminist philosophy, interventions: epistemology and philosophy of science | feminist philosophy, interventions: political philosophy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on argumentation | Habermas, Jürgen | Hume, David | induction: problem of | legal reasoning: precedent and analogy in | liar paradox | logic: inductive | logic: informal | logic: non-monotonic | logic: paraconsistent | logic: relevance | logical consequence | Peirce, Charles Sanders | reasoning: defeasible | scientific knowledge: social dimensions of | Spinoza, Baruch | Stebbing, Susan | thought experiments

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Merel Talbi, Elias Anttila, César dos Santos, Hein Duijf, Silvia Ivani, Caglar Dede, Colin Rittberg, Marcin Lewiński, Andrew Aberdein, Malcolm Keating, Maksymillian Del Mar, and an anonymous referee for suggestions and/or comments on earlier drafts. This research was supported by H2020 European Research Council [771074-SEA].

Copyright © 2021 by Catarina Dutilh Novaes < cdutilhnovaes @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

What this handout is about

This handout will define what an argument is and explain why you need one in most of your academic essays.

Arguments are everywhere

You may be surprised to hear that the word “argument” does not have to be written anywhere in your assignment for it to be an important part of your task. In fact, making an argument—expressing a point of view on a subject and supporting it with evidence—is often the aim of academic writing. Your instructors may assume that you know this and thus may not explain the importance of arguments in class.

Most material you learn in college is or has been debated by someone, somewhere, at some time. Even when the material you read or hear is presented as a simple fact, it may actually be one person’s interpretation of a set of information. Instructors may call on you to examine that interpretation and defend it, refute it, or offer some new view of your own. In writing assignments, you will almost always need to do more than just summarize information that you have gathered or regurgitate facts that have been discussed in class. You will need to develop a point of view on or interpretation of that material and provide evidence for your position.

Consider an example. For nearly 2000 years, educated people in many Western cultures believed that bloodletting—deliberately causing a sick person to lose blood—was the most effective treatment for a variety of illnesses. The claim that bloodletting is beneficial to human health was not widely questioned until the 1800s, and some physicians continued to recommend bloodletting as late as the 1920s. Medical practices have now changed because some people began to doubt the effectiveness of bloodletting; these people argued against it and provided convincing evidence. Human knowledge grows out of such differences of opinion, and scholars like your instructors spend their lives engaged in debate over what claims may be counted as accurate in their fields. In their courses, they want you to engage in similar kinds of critical thinking and debate.

Argumentation is not just what your instructors do. We all use argumentation on a daily basis, and you probably already have some skill at crafting an argument. The more you improve your skills in this area, the better you will be at thinking critically, reasoning, making choices, and weighing evidence.

Making a claim

What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim” or “thesis statement,” backed up with evidence that supports the idea. In the majority of college papers, you will need to make some sort of claim and use evidence to support it, and your ability to do this well will separate your papers from those of students who see assignments as mere accumulations of fact and detail. In other words, gone are the happy days of being given a “topic” about which you can write anything. It is time to stake out a position and prove why it is a good position for a thinking person to hold. See our handout on thesis statements .

Claims can be as simple as “Protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged,” with evidence such as, “In this experiment, protons and electrons acted in such and such a way.” Claims can also be as complex as “Genre is the most important element to the contract of expectations between filmmaker and audience,” using reasoning and evidence such as, “defying genre expectations can create a complete apocalypse of story form and content, leaving us stranded in a sort of genre-less abyss.” In either case, the rest of your paper will detail the reasoning and evidence that have led you to believe that your position is best.

When beginning to write a paper, ask yourself, “What is my point?” For example, the point of this handout is to help you become a better writer, and we are arguing that an important step in the process of writing effective arguments is understanding the concept of argumentation. If your papers do not have a main point, they cannot be arguing for anything. Asking yourself what your point is can help you avoid a mere “information dump.” Consider this: your instructors probably know a lot more than you do about your subject matter. Why, then, would you want to provide them with material they already know? Instructors are usually looking for two things:

• Proof that you understand the material
• A demonstration of your ability to use or apply the material in ways that go beyond what you have read or heard.

This second part can be done in many ways: you can critique the material, apply it to something else, or even just explain it in a different way. In order to succeed at this second step, though, you must have a particular point to argue.

Arguments in academic writing are usually complex and take time to develop. Your argument will need to be more than a simple or obvious statement such as “Frank Lloyd Wright was a great architect.” Such a statement might capture your initial impressions of Wright as you have studied him in class; however, you need to look deeper and express specifically what caused that “greatness.” Your instructor will probably expect something more complicated, such as “Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture combines elements of European modernism, Asian aesthetic form, and locally found materials to create a unique new style,” or “There are many strong similarities between Wright’s building designs and those of his mother, which suggests that he may have borrowed some of her ideas.” To develop your argument, you would then define your terms and prove your claim with evidence from Wright’s drawings and buildings and those of the other architects you mentioned.

Do not stop with having a point. You have to back up your point with evidence. The strength of your evidence, and your use of it, can make or break your argument. See our handout on evidence . You already have the natural inclination for this type of thinking, if not in an academic setting. Think about how you talked your parents into letting you borrow the family car. Did you present them with lots of instances of your past trustworthiness? Did you make them feel guilty because your friends’ parents all let them drive? Did you whine until they just wanted you to shut up? Did you look up statistics on teen driving and use them to show how you didn’t fit the dangerous-driver profile? These are all types of argumentation, and they exist in academia in similar forms.

Every field has slightly different requirements for acceptable evidence, so familiarize yourself with some arguments from within that field instead of just applying whatever evidence you like best. Pay attention to your textbooks and your instructor’s lectures. What types of argument and evidence are they using? The type of evidence that sways an English instructor may not work to convince a sociology instructor. Find out what counts as proof that something is true in that field. Is it statistics, a logical development of points, something from the object being discussed (art work, text, culture, or atom), the way something works, or some combination of more than one of these things?

Be consistent with your evidence. Unlike negotiating for the use of your parents’ car, a college paper is not the place for an all-out blitz of every type of argument. You can often use more than one type of evidence within a paper, but make sure that within each section you are providing the reader with evidence appropriate to each claim. So, if you start a paragraph or section with a statement like “Putting the student seating area closer to the basketball court will raise player performance,” do not follow with your evidence on how much more money the university could raise by letting more students go to games for free. Information about how fan support raises player morale, which then results in better play, would be a better follow-up. Your next section could offer clear reasons why undergraduates have as much or more right to attend an undergraduate event as wealthy alumni—but this information would not go in the same section as the fan support stuff. You cannot convince a confused person, so keep things tidy and ordered.

Counterargument

One way to strengthen your argument and show that you have a deep understanding of the issue you are discussing is to anticipate and address counterarguments or objections. By considering what someone who disagrees with your position might have to say about your argument, you show that you have thought things through, and you dispose of some of the reasons your audience might have for not accepting your argument. Recall our discussion of student seating in the Dean Dome. To make the most effective argument possible, you should consider not only what students would say about seating but also what alumni who have paid a lot to get good seats might say.

You can generate counterarguments by asking yourself how someone who disagrees with you might respond to each of the points you’ve made or your position as a whole. If you can’t immediately imagine another position, here are some strategies to try:

• Do some research. It may seem to you that no one could possibly disagree with the position you are arguing, but someone probably has. For example, some people argue that a hotdog is a sandwich. If you are making an argument concerning, for example, the characteristics of an exceptional sandwich, you might want to see what some of these people have to say.
• Talk with a friend or with your teacher. Another person may be able to imagine counterarguments that haven’t occurred to you.
• Consider your conclusion or claim and the premises of your argument and imagine someone who denies each of them. For example, if you argued, “Cats make the best pets. This is because they are clean and independent,” you might imagine someone saying, “Cats do not make the best pets. They are dirty and needy.”

Once you have thought up some counterarguments, consider how you will respond to them—will you concede that your opponent has a point but explain why your audience should nonetheless accept your argument? Will you reject the counterargument and explain why it is mistaken? Either way, you will want to leave your reader with a sense that your argument is stronger than opposing arguments.

When you are summarizing opposing arguments, be charitable. Present each argument fairly and objectively, rather than trying to make it look foolish. You want to show that you have considered the many sides of the issue. If you simply attack or caricature your opponent (also referred to as presenting a “straw man”), you suggest that your argument is only capable of defeating an extremely weak adversary, which may undermine your argument rather than enhance it.

It is usually better to consider one or two serious counterarguments in some depth, rather than to give a long but superficial list of many different counterarguments and replies.

Be sure that your reply is consistent with your original argument. If considering a counterargument changes your position, you will need to go back and revise your original argument accordingly.

Audience is a very important consideration in argument. Take a look at our handout on audience . A lifetime of dealing with your family members has helped you figure out which arguments work best to persuade each of them. Maybe whining works with one parent, but the other will only accept cold, hard statistics. Your kid brother may listen only to the sound of money in his palm. It’s usually wise to think of your audience in an academic setting as someone who is perfectly smart but who doesn’t necessarily agree with you. You are not just expressing your opinion in an argument (“It’s true because I said so”), and in most cases your audience will know something about the subject at hand—so you will need sturdy proof. At the same time, do not think of your audience as capable of reading your mind. You have to come out and state both your claim and your evidence clearly. Do not assume that because the instructor knows the material, he or she understands what part of it you are using, what you think about it, and why you have taken the position you’ve chosen.

Critical reading

Critical reading is a big part of understanding argument. Although some of the material you read will be very persuasive, do not fall under the spell of the printed word as authority. Very few of your instructors think of the texts they assign as the last word on the subject. Remember that the author of every text has an agenda, something that he or she wants you to believe. This is OK—everything is written from someone’s perspective—but it’s a good thing to be aware of. For more information on objectivity and bias and on reading sources carefully, read our handouts on evaluating print sources and reading to write .

Take notes either in the margins of your source (if you are using a photocopy or your own book) or on a separate sheet as you read. Put away that highlighter! Simply highlighting a text is good for memorizing the main ideas in that text—it does not encourage critical reading. Part of your goal as a reader should be to put the author’s ideas in your own words. Then you can stop thinking of these ideas as facts and start thinking of them as arguments.

When you read, ask yourself questions like “What is the author trying to prove?” and “What is the author assuming I will agree with?” Do you agree with the author? Does the author adequately defend her argument? What kind of proof does she use? Is there something she leaves out that you would put in? Does putting it in hurt her argument? As you get used to reading critically, you will start to see the sometimes hidden agendas of other writers, and you can use this skill to improve your own ability to craft effective arguments.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research , 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ede, Lisa. 2004. Work in Progress: A Guide to Academic Writing and Revising , 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Gage, John T. 2005. The Shape of Reason: Argumentative Writing in College , 4th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A., and John J. Ruszkiewicz. 2016. Everything’s an Argument , 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

How to Write and Structure a Persuasive Speech

• Homework Tips
• Learning Styles & Skills
• Study Methods
• Time Management
• Private School
• College Admissions
• College Life
• Graduate School
• Business School
• Distance Learning
• M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
• B.A., History, Armstrong State University

The purpose of a persuasive speech is to convince your audience to agree with an idea or opinion that you present. First, you'll need to choose a side on a controversial topic, then you will write a speech to explain your position, and convince the audience to agree with you.

You can produce an effective persuasive speech if you structure your argument as a solution to a problem. Your first job as a speaker is to convince your audience that a particular problem is important to them, and then you must convince them that you have the solution to make things better.

Note: You don't have to address a real problem. Any need can work as the problem. For example, you could consider the lack of a pet, the need to wash one's hands, or the need to pick a particular sport to play as the "problem."

As an example, let's imagine that you have chosen "Getting Up Early" as your persuasion topic. Your goal will be to persuade classmates to get themselves out of bed an hour earlier every morning. In this instance, the problem could be summed up as "morning chaos."

A standard speech format has an introduction with a great hook statement, three main points, and a summary. Your persuasive speech will be a tailored version of this format.

Before you write the text of your speech, you should sketch an outline that includes your hook statement and three main points.

Writing the Text

The introduction of your speech must be compelling because your audience will make up their minds within a few minutes whether or not they are interested in your topic.

Before you write the full body you should come up with a greeting. Your greeting can be as simple as "Good morning everyone. My name is Frank."

After your greeting, you will offer a hook to capture attention. A hook sentence for the "morning chaos" speech could be a question:

• How many times have you been late for school?
• Does your day begin with shouts and arguments?
• Have you ever missed the bus?

Or your hook could be a statistic or surprising statement:

• More than 50 percent of high school students skip breakfast because they just don't have time to eat.
• Tardy kids drop out of school more often than punctual kids.

Once you have the attention of your audience, follow through to define the topic/problem and introduce your solution. Here's an example of what you might have so far:

Good afternoon, class. Some of you know me, but some of you may not. My name is Frank Godfrey, and I have a question for you. Does your day begin with shouts and arguments? Do you go to school in a bad mood because you've been yelled at, or because you argued with your parent? The chaos you experience in the morning can bring you down and affect your performance at school.

Add the solution:

You can improve your mood and your school performance by adding more time to your morning schedule. You can accomplish this by setting your alarm clock to go off one hour earlier.

Your next task will be to write the body, which will contain the three main points you've come up with to argue your position. Each point will be followed by supporting evidence or anecdotes, and each body paragraph will need to end with a transition statement that leads to the next segment. Here is a sample of three main statements:

• Bad moods caused by morning chaos will affect your workday performance.
• If you skip breakfast to buy time, you're making a harmful health decision.
• (Ending on a cheerful note) You'll enjoy a boost to your self-esteem when you reduce the morning chaos.

After you write three body paragraphs with strong transition statements that make your speech flow, you are ready to work on your summary.

Your summary will re-emphasize your argument and restate your points in slightly different language. This can be a little tricky. You don't want to sound repetitive but will need to repeat what you have said. Find a way to reword the same main points.

Finally, you must make sure to write a clear final sentence or passage to keep yourself from stammering at the end or fading off in an awkward moment. A few examples of graceful exits:

• We all like to sleep. It's hard to get up some mornings, but rest assured that the reward is well worth the effort.
• If you follow these guidelines and make the effort to get up a little bit earlier every day, you'll reap rewards in your home life and on your report card.

Tips for Writing Your Speech

• Don't be confrontational in your argument. You don't need to put down the other side; just convince your audience that your position is correct by using positive assertions.
• Use simple statistics. Don't overwhelm your audience with confusing numbers.
• Don't complicate your speech by going outside the standard "three points" format. While it might seem simplistic, it is a tried and true method for presenting to an audience who is listening as opposed to reading.
• 100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
• 100 Persuasive Essay Topics
• Examples of Great Introductory Paragraphs
• 50 Argumentative Essay Topics
• How to Write a Persuasive Essay
• 5 Tips on How to Write a Speech Essay
• How To Write an Essay
• Tips on How to Write an Argumentative Essay
• Writing an Opinion Essay
• How to Structure an Essay
• What Is Expository Writing?
• 5 Steps to Writing a Position Paper
• Ethos, Logos, Pathos for Persuasion
• Definition and Examples of Analysis in Composition
• Write an Attention-Grabbing Opening Sentence for an Essay
• How to Write a Graduation Speech as Valedictorian

.

, , , , .

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.2 Persuasive Speaking

Learning objectives.

• Explain how claims, evidence, and warrants function to create an argument.
• Identify strategies for choosing a persuasive speech topic.
• Identify strategies for adapting a persuasive speech based on an audience’s orientation to the proposition.
• Distinguish among propositions of fact, value, and policy.
• Choose an organizational pattern that is fitting for a persuasive speech topic.

We produce and receive persuasive messages daily, but we don’t often stop to think about how we make the arguments we do or the quality of the arguments that we receive. In this section, we’ll learn the components of an argument, how to choose a good persuasive speech topic, and how to adapt and organize a persuasive message.

Foundation of Persuasion

Persuasive speaking seeks to influence the beliefs, attitudes, values, or behaviors of audience members. In order to persuade, a speaker has to construct arguments that appeal to audience members. Arguments form around three components: claim, evidence, and warrant. The claim is the statement that will be supported by evidence. Your thesis statement is the overarching claim for your speech, but you will make other claims within the speech to support the larger thesis. Evidence , also called grounds, supports the claim. The main points of your persuasive speech and the supporting material you include serve as evidence. For example, a speaker may make the following claim: “There should be a national law against texting while driving.” The speaker could then support the claim by providing the following evidence: “Research from the US Department of Transportation has found that texting while driving creates a crash risk that is twenty-three times worse than driving while not distracted.” The warrant is the underlying justification that connects the claim and the evidence. One warrant for the claim and evidence cited in this example is that the US Department of Transportation is an institution that funds research conducted by credible experts. An additional and more implicit warrant is that people shouldn’t do things they know are unsafe.

Figure 11.2 Components of an Argument

The quality of your evidence often impacts the strength of your warrant, and some warrants are stronger than others. A speaker could also provide evidence to support their claim advocating for a national ban on texting and driving by saying, “I have personally seen people almost wreck while trying to text.” While this type of evidence can also be persuasive, it provides a different type and strength of warrant since it is based on personal experience. In general, the anecdotal evidence from personal experience would be given a weaker warrant than the evidence from the national research report. The same process works in our legal system when a judge evaluates the connection between a claim and evidence. If someone steals my car, I could say to the police, “I’m pretty sure Mario did it because when I said hi to him on campus the other day, he didn’t say hi back, which proves he’s mad at me.” A judge faced with that evidence is unlikely to issue a warrant for Mario’s arrest. Fingerprint evidence from the steering wheel that has been matched with a suspect is much more likely to warrant arrest.

As you put together a persuasive argument, you act as the judge. You can evaluate arguments that you come across in your research by analyzing the connection (the warrant) between the claim and the evidence. If the warrant is strong, you may want to highlight that argument in your speech. You may also be able to point out a weak warrant in an argument that goes against your position, which you could then include in your speech. Every argument starts by putting together a claim and evidence, but arguments grow to include many interrelated units.

Choosing a Persuasive Speech Topic

As with any speech, topic selection is important and is influenced by many factors. Good persuasive speech topics are current, controversial, and have important implications for society. If your topic is currently being discussed on television, in newspapers, in the lounges in your dorm, or around your family’s dinner table, then it’s a current topic. A persuasive speech aimed at getting audience members to wear seat belts in cars wouldn’t have much current relevance, given that statistics consistently show that most people wear seat belts. Giving the same speech would have been much more timely in the 1970s when there was a huge movement to increase seat-belt use.

Many topics that are current are also controversial, which is what gets them attention by the media and citizens. Current and controversial topics will be more engaging for your audience. A persuasive speech to encourage audience members to donate blood or recycle wouldn’t be very controversial, since the benefits of both practices are widely agreed on. However, arguing that the restrictions on blood donation by men who have had sexual relations with men be lifted would be controversial. I must caution here that controversial is not the same as inflammatory. An inflammatory topic is one that evokes strong reactions from an audience for the sake of provoking a reaction. Being provocative for no good reason or choosing a topic that is extremist will damage your credibility and prevent you from achieving your speech goals.

You should also choose a topic that is important to you and to society as a whole. As we have already discussed in this book, our voices are powerful, as it is through communication that we participate and make change in society. Therefore we should take seriously opportunities to use our voices to speak publicly. Choosing a speech topic that has implications for society is probably a better application of your public speaking skills than choosing to persuade the audience that Lebron James is the best basketball player in the world or that Superman is a better hero than Spiderman. Although those topics may be very important to you, they don’t carry the same social weight as many other topics you could choose to discuss. Remember that speakers have ethical obligations to the audience and should take the opportunity to speak seriously.

You will also want to choose a topic that connects to your own interests and passions. If you are an education major, it might make more sense to do a persuasive speech about funding for public education than the death penalty. If there are hot-button issues for you that make you get fired up and veins bulge out in your neck, then it may be a good idea to avoid those when speaking in an academic or professional context.

Choose a persuasive speech topic that you’re passionate about but still able to approach and deliver in an ethical manner.

Michael Vadon – Nigel Farage – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Choosing such topics may interfere with your ability to deliver a speech in a competent and ethical manner. You want to care about your topic, but you also want to be able to approach it in a way that’s going to make people want to listen to you. Most people tune out speakers they perceive to be too ideologically entrenched and write them off as extremists or zealots.

You also want to ensure that your topic is actually persuasive. Draft your thesis statement as an “I believe” statement so your stance on an issue is clear. Also, think of your main points as reasons to support your thesis. Students end up with speeches that aren’t very persuasive in nature if they don’t think of their main points as reasons. Identifying arguments that counter your thesis is also a good exercise to help ensure your topic is persuasive. If you can clearly and easily identify a competing thesis statement and supporting reasons, then your topic and approach are arguable.

Review of Tips for Choosing a Persuasive Speech Topic

• Not current. People should use seat belts.
• Current. People should not text while driving.
• Not controversial. People should recycle.
• Controversial. Recycling should be mandatory by law.
• Not as impactful. Superman is the best superhero.
• Impactful. Colleges and universities should adopt zero-tolerance bullying policies.
• Unclear thesis. Homeschooling is common in the United States.
• Clear, argumentative thesis with stance. Homeschooling does not provide the same benefits of traditional education and should be strictly monitored and limited.

Adapting Persuasive Messages

Competent speakers should consider their audience throughout the speech-making process. Given that persuasive messages seek to directly influence the audience in some way, audience adaptation becomes even more important. If possible, poll your audience to find out their orientation toward your thesis. I read my students’ thesis statements aloud and have the class indicate whether they agree with, disagree with, or are neutral in regards to the proposition. It is unlikely that you will have a homogenous audience, meaning that there will probably be some who agree, some who disagree, and some who are neutral. So you may employ all of the following strategies, in varying degrees, in your persuasive speech.

When you have audience members who already agree with your proposition, you should focus on intensifying their agreement. You can also assume that they have foundational background knowledge of the topic, which means you can take the time to inform them about lesser-known aspects of a topic or cause to further reinforce their agreement. Rather than move these audience members from disagreement to agreement, you can focus on moving them from agreement to action. Remember, calls to action should be as specific as possible to help you capitalize on audience members’ motivation in the moment so they are more likely to follow through on the action.

There are two main reasons audience members may be neutral in regards to your topic: (1) they are uninformed about the topic or (2) they do not think the topic affects them. In this case, you should focus on instilling a concern for the topic. Uninformed audiences may need background information before they can decide if they agree or disagree with your proposition. If the issue is familiar but audience members are neutral because they don’t see how the topic affects them, focus on getting the audience’s attention and demonstrating relevance. Remember that concrete and proxemic supporting materials will help an audience find relevance in a topic. Students who pick narrow or unfamiliar topics will have to work harder to persuade their audience, but neutral audiences often provide the most chance of achieving your speech goal since even a small change may move them into agreement.

When audience members disagree with your proposition, you should focus on changing their minds. To effectively persuade, you must be seen as a credible speaker. When an audience is hostile to your proposition, establishing credibility is even more important, as audience members may be quick to discount or discredit someone who doesn’t appear prepared or doesn’t present well-researched and supported information. Don’t give an audience a chance to write you off before you even get to share your best evidence. When facing a disagreeable audience, the goal should also be small change. You may not be able to switch someone’s position completely, but influencing him or her is still a success. Aside from establishing your credibility, you should also establish common ground with an audience.

Build common ground with disagreeable audiences and acknowledge areas of disagreement.

Chris-Havard Berge – Shaking Hands – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Acknowledging areas of disagreement and logically refuting counterarguments in your speech is also a way to approach persuading an audience in disagreement, as it shows that you are open-minded enough to engage with other perspectives.

Determining Your Proposition

The proposition of your speech is the overall direction of the content and how that relates to the speech goal. A persuasive speech will fall primarily into one of three categories: propositions of fact, value, or policy. A speech may have elements of any of the three propositions, but you can usually determine the overall proposition of a speech from the specific purpose and thesis statements.

Propositions of fact focus on beliefs and try to establish that something “is or isn’t.” Propositions of value focus on persuading audience members that something is “good or bad,” “right or wrong,” or “desirable or undesirable.” Propositions of policy advocate that something “should or shouldn’t” be done. Since most persuasive speech topics can be approached as propositions of fact, value, or policy, it is a good idea to start thinking about what kind of proposition you want to make, as it will influence how you go about your research and writing. As you can see in the following example using the topic of global warming, the type of proposition changes the types of supporting materials you would need:

• Proposition of fact. Global warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases related to human activity.
• Proposition of value. America’s disproportionately large amount of pollution relative to other countries is wrong .
• Proposition of policy. There should be stricter emission restrictions on individual cars.

To support propositions of fact, you would want to present a logical argument based on objective facts that can then be used to build persuasive arguments. Propositions of value may require you to appeal more to your audience’s emotions and cite expert and lay testimony. Persuasive speeches about policy usually require you to research existing and previous laws or procedures and determine if any relevant legislation or propositions are currently being considered.

“Getting Critical”

Persuasion and Masculinity

The traditional view of rhetoric that started in ancient Greece and still informs much of our views on persuasion today has been critiqued for containing Western and masculine biases. Traditional persuasion has been linked to Western and masculine values of domination, competition, and change, which have been critiqued as coercive and violent (Gearhart, 1979).

Communication scholars proposed an alternative to traditional persuasive rhetoric in the form of invitational rhetoric. Invitational rhetoric differs from a traditional view of persuasive rhetoric that “attempts to win over an opponent, or to advocate the correctness of a single position in a very complex issue” (Bone et al., 2008). Instead, invitational rhetoric proposes a model of reaching consensus through dialogue. The goal is to create a climate in which growth and change can occur but isn’t required for one person to “win” an argument over another. Each person in a communication situation is acknowledged to have a standpoint that is valid but can still be influenced through the offering of alternative perspectives and the invitation to engage with and discuss these standpoints (Ryan & Natalle, 2001). Safety, value, and freedom are three important parts of invitational rhetoric. Safety involves a feeling of security in which audience members and speakers feel like their ideas and contributions will not be denigrated. Value refers to the notion that each person in a communication encounter is worthy of recognition and that people are willing to step outside their own perspectives to better understand others. Last, freedom is present in communication when communicators do not limit the thinking or decisions of others, allowing all participants to speak up (Bone et al., 2008).

Invitational rhetoric doesn’t claim that all persuasive rhetoric is violent. Instead, it acknowledges that some persuasion is violent and that the connection between persuasion and violence is worth exploring. Invitational rhetoric has the potential to contribute to the civility of communication in our society. When we are civil, we are capable of engaging with and appreciating different perspectives while still understanding our own. People aren’t attacked or reviled because their views diverge from ours. Rather than reducing the world to “us against them, black or white, and right or wrong,” invitational rhetoric encourages us to acknowledge human perspectives in all their complexity (Bone et al., 2008).

• What is your reaction to the claim that persuasion includes Western and masculine biases?
• What are some strengths and weaknesses of the proposed alternatives to traditional persuasion?
• In what situations might an invitational approach to persuasion be useful? In what situations might you want to rely on traditional models of persuasion?

Organizing a Persuasive Speech

We have already discussed several patterns for organizing your speech, but some organization strategies are specific to persuasive speaking. Some persuasive speech topics lend themselves to a topical organization pattern, which breaks the larger topic up into logical divisions. Earlier, in Chapter 9 “Preparing a Speech” , we discussed recency and primacy, and in this chapter we discussed adapting a persuasive speech based on the audience’s orientation toward the proposition. These concepts can be connected when organizing a persuasive speech topically. Primacy means putting your strongest information first and is based on the idea that audience members put more weight on what they hear first. This strategy can be especially useful when addressing an audience that disagrees with your proposition, as you can try to win them over early. Recency means putting your strongest information last to leave a powerful impression. This can be useful when you are building to a climax in your speech, specifically if you include a call to action.

Putting your strongest argument last can help motivate an audience to action.

Celestine Chua – The Change – CC BY 2.0.

The problem-solution pattern is an organizational pattern that advocates for a particular approach to solve a problem. You would provide evidence to show that a problem exists and then propose a solution with additional evidence or reasoning to justify the course of action. One main point addressing the problem and one main point addressing the solution may be sufficient, but you are not limited to two. You could add a main point between the problem and solution that outlines other solutions that have failed. You can also combine the problem-solution pattern with the cause-effect pattern or expand the speech to fit with Monroe’s Motivated Sequence.

As was mentioned in Chapter 9 “Preparing a Speech” , the cause-effect pattern can be used for informative speaking when the relationship between the cause and effect is not contested. The pattern is more fitting for persuasive speeches when the relationship between the cause and effect is controversial or unclear. There are several ways to use causes and effects to structure a speech. You could have a two-point speech that argues from cause to effect or from effect to cause. You could also have more than one cause that lead to the same effect or a single cause that leads to multiple effects. The following are some examples of thesis statements that correspond to various organizational patterns. As you can see, the same general topic area, prison overcrowding, is used for each example. This illustrates the importance of considering your organizational options early in the speech-making process, since the pattern you choose will influence your researching and writing.

Persuasive Speech Thesis Statements by Organizational Pattern

• Problem-solution. Prison overcrowding is a serious problem that we can solve by finding alternative rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders.
• Problem–failed solution–proposed solution. Prison overcrowding is a serious problem that shouldn’t be solved by building more prisons; instead, we should support alternative rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders.
• Cause-effect. Prisons are overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, which leads to lesser sentences for violent criminals.
• Cause-cause-effect. State budgets are being slashed and prisons are overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, which leads to lesser sentences for violent criminals.
• Cause-effect-effect. Prisons are overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, which leads to increased behavioral problems among inmates and lesser sentences for violent criminals.
• Cause-effect-solution. Prisons are overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, which leads to lesser sentences for violent criminals; therefore we need to find alternative rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders.

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence is an organizational pattern designed for persuasive speaking that appeals to audience members’ needs and motivates them to action. If your persuasive speaking goals include a call to action, you may want to consider this organizational pattern. We already learned about the five steps of Monroe’s Motivated Sequence in Chapter 9 “Preparing a Speech” , but we will review them here with an example:

• Hook the audience by making the topic relevant to them.
• Imagine living a full life, retiring, and slipping into your golden years. As you get older you become more dependent on others and move into an assisted-living facility. Although you think life will be easier, things get worse as you experience abuse and mistreatment from the staff. You report the abuse to a nurse and wait, but nothing happens and the abuse continues. Elder abuse is a common occurrence, and unlike child abuse, there are no laws in our state that mandate complaints of elder abuse be reported or investigated.
• Cite evidence to support the fact that the issue needs to be addressed.
• According to the American Psychological Association, one to two million elderly US Americans have been abused by their caretakers. In our state, those in the medical, psychiatric, and social work field are required to report suspicion of child abuse but are not mandated to report suspicions of elder abuse.
• Offer a solution and persuade the audience that it is feasible and well thought out.
• There should be a federal law mandating that suspicion of elder abuse be reported and that all claims of elder abuse be investigated.
• Take the audience beyond your solution and help them visualize the positive results of implementing it or the negative consequences of not.
• Elderly people should not have to live in fear during their golden years. A mandatory reporting law for elderly abuse will help ensure that the voices of our elderly loved ones will be heard.
• Call your audience to action by giving them concrete steps to follow to engage in a particular action or to change a thought or behavior.
• I urge you to take action in two ways. First, raise awareness about this issue by talking to your own friends and family. Second, contact your representatives at the state and national level to let them know that elder abuse should be taken seriously and given the same level of importance as other forms of abuse. I brought cards with the contact information for our state and national representatives for this area. Please take one at the end of my speech. A short e-mail or phone call can help end the silence surrounding elder abuse.

Key Takeaways

• Arguments are formed by making claims that are supported by evidence. The underlying justification that connects the claim and evidence is the warrant. Arguments can have strong or weak warrants, which will make them more or less persuasive.
• Good persuasive speech topics are current, controversial (but not inflammatory), and important to the speaker and society.
• When audience members agree with the proposal, focus on intensifying their agreement and moving them to action.
• When audience members are neutral in regards to the proposition, provide background information to better inform them about the issue and present information that demonstrates the relevance of the topic to the audience.
• When audience members disagree with the proposal, focus on establishing your credibility, build common ground with the audience, and incorporate counterarguments and refute them.
• Propositions of fact focus on establishing that something “is or isn’t” or is “true or false.”
• Propositions of value focus on persuading an audience that something is “good or bad,” “right or wrong,” or “desirable or undesirable.”
• Propositions of policy advocate that something “should or shouldn’t” be done.
• Persuasive speeches can be organized using the following patterns: problem-solution, cause-effect, cause-effect-solution, or Monroe’s Motivated Sequence.
• Getting integrated: Give an example of persuasive messages that you might need to create in each of the following contexts: academic, professional, personal, and civic. Then do the same thing for persuasive messages you may receive.
• To help ensure that your persuasive speech topic is persuasive and not informative, identify the claims, evidence, and warrants you may use in your argument. In addition, write a thesis statement that refutes your topic idea and identify evidence and warrants that could support that counterargument.
• Determine if your speech is primarily a proposition of fact, value, or policy. How can you tell? Identify an organizational pattern that you think will work well for your speech topic, draft one sentence for each of your main points, and arrange them according to the pattern you chose.

Bone, J. E., Cindy L. Griffin, and T. M. Linda Scholz, “Beyond Traditional Conceptualizations of Rhetoric: Invitational Rhetoric and a Move toward Civility,” Western Journal of Communication 72 (2008): 436.

Gearhart, S. M., “The Womanization of Rhetoric,” Women’s Studies International Quarterly 2 (1979): 195–201.

Ryan, K. J., and Elizabeth J. Natalle, “Fusing Horizons: Standpoint Hermenutics and Invitational Rhetoric,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 31 (2001): 69–90.

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.2: Introduction to Argumentative Essays

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58377
• Lumen Learning

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

What you’ll learn to do: evaluate argumentative essays and thesis statements

An academic argument asserts a claim and supports that claim with evidence.

The goal of an argument is to convince readers that the writer’s position is reasonable, valid, and worthy of consideration. Therefore, an argumentative thesis statement needs to be not only clear and focused, but also debatable, assertive, and reasoned. Additionally, an argumentative thesis must be able to be supported with evidence.

In this section, you’ll learn about argumentative essays and how they are shaped around strong, clear thesis statements.

Contributors and Attributions

• Outcome: Argumentative Thesis Statements. Provided by : University of Mississippi. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Graphic of a discussion. Authored by : Tumisu. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : pixabay.com/illustrations/interview-job-icon-job-interview-1018333/. License : Other . License Terms : pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

IV. Types of Argumentation

4.1 Features of an Argument

Terri Pantuso

Argument is not the loud, assertive, unwavering statement of your opinion in the hopes of conquering the opposition. Argument is the careful consideration of numerous positions and the careful development of logically sound, carefully constructed assertions that, when combined, offer a worthwhile perspective in an ongoing debate. Certainly you want to imagine yourself arguing with others—and certainly you want to believe your ideas have superior qualities to theirs—but the purpose of argument in the college setting is not to solve a practical problem or shut down a conversation. Rather, it’s to illuminate, expand, and further inform a debate happening on a worthwhile subject between reasonable, intelligent people. In other words, calling the opposition stupid is not good argument, it’s an ad hominem attack. For a review of this and other logical fallacies, refer to section 3.6 of this text.

Some of the key tools of argument are the strategies that students are asked to consider when doing a rhetorical analysis. Before beginning an argument of your own, review the basic concepts of rhetorical appeals below. As you plan and draft your own argument, carefully use the following elements of rhetoric to your own advantage.

Rhetorical Appeals

The use of data, statistical evidence, and sufficient support to establish the practicality and rationality of your claims should be the strongest element of your argument. To have a logically sound argument, you should include:

• A debatable and supportable claim
• Logical reasoning to support your claim
• Sound evidence and examples to justify the reasoning
• Reasonable projections
• Concessions & rebuttals
• Avoid logical fallacies

The ethical and well-balanced use of all of the strategies above will help you to present yourself as trustworthy and intelligent in your consideration of the topic and in the development of your argument. This balance should include the use of credible, relevant sources which can be accomplished through research methods utilizing the strategies governing your discipline. Following those strategies will build your credibility as a writer of argument, particularly in the college setting, as you pay attention to the needs of the audience with regard to presentation and style. In college, this means that you have used the style manual (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) required for the assignment and appropriate to the audience. In so doing, make certain to cite the sources you have used according to the style manual you are using.

The use of examples and language that evoke an appropriate emotional response in your reader—that gets them to care about your topic—can be helpful in argument. For academic essays, pathos may be useful in introductory sections, concluding sections, or as ways to link various parts of the paper together. However, if your argument is based solely or primarily upon emotional appeals, it will be viewed as weak in an academic setting, especially when data or ethical sources can disprove your claims. Therefore, college writing often puts more emphasis on logos and ethos.

Approaches to Argument

A well-structured argument is one that is carefully and optimally planned. It is organized so that the argument has a continuous building of ideas, one upon the other or in concert with the other, in order to produce the most persuasive impact or effect on the reader. For clarity, avoid repeating ideas, reasons, or evidence. Instead, consider how each idea in your argument connects to the others. Should some ideas come before others? Should you build your reasons from simple to complex or from complex to simple? Should you present the counterargument before your reasons? Or, would it make more sense for you to present your reasons and then the concessions and rebuttals ? How can you use clear transitional phrases to facilitate reader comprehension of your argument? Consider these questions while constructing and revising your argument.

Simple to Complex/Complex to Simple

Whether structuring a paragraph or a research paper, the simple to complex (or reverse) method can be an effective way to build cohesion throughout your writing. Just as the phrase implies, simple to complex is when a writer introduces a simple concept then builds upon it to heighten interest. Sometimes, the opposite structure works to move the reader through your position. For example, if you choose to write on the topic of pollution as it impacts the world, you might begin with the concept of straws and sea turtles. Your simple topic of sea turtles swallowing straws thrown away might then move to the complex issues of consumption, consumerism and disposal. Conversely, if you begin with the broad, complex topic of consumerism, you could then move to the story of the sea turtles as a way of building pathos in the reader. Whichever method you choose, make sure that the relationship between the topics is logical and clear so that readers find validity in your position.

Cause/Effect

The cause/effect method is a way of establishing a reason, or reasons, why something has occurred. For example, if you live in south Texas, then you understand the problem that mosquitoes cause in the hot, humid summer months. While there is no way to eliminate all mosquitoes, there are ways to minimize their growth in your backyard. If you research the ways in which mosquitoes are born, you would understand the importance of things such as emptying containers of all stagnant water so that they cannot incubate or keeping your grass mowed to eliminate areas for them to populate. The process by which you go through to determine the cause of mosquito infestations is the cause and effect method. In argumentation, you might use this method to support a claim for community efforts to prevent mosquitoes from growing in your neighborhood. Demonstrating that process is effective for a logos based argument.

Chronological

Sometimes an argument is presented best when a sequential pattern is used. Oftentimes, that pattern will be based on the pattern of time in which the sequence occurs. For example, if you are writing an argumentative essay in which you are calling for a new stop light to be installed at a busy intersection, you might utilize a chronological structure to demonstrate the rate of increased accidents over a given period of time at that intersection. If your pattern demonstrates a marked increase in accidents, then your data would show a logical reason for supporting your position. Oftentimes, a chronological pattern involves steps indicated by signal words such as first, next, and finally. Utilizing this pattern will walk readers through your line of reasoning and guide them towards reaching your proposed conclusion.

Another method for organizing your writing is by order of importance. This method is often referred to as emphatic because organization is done based upon emphasis. The direction you choose to go is yours whether you begin with the strongest, most important point of your argument, or the weakest. In either case, the hierarchy of ideas should be clear to readers. The emphatic method is often subjectively based upon the writer’s beliefs. If, for example, you want to build an argument for a new rail system to be used in your city, you will have to decide which reason is most important and which is simply support material. For one writer, the decrease in the number of cars on the road might be the most important aspect as it would result in a reduction of toxic emissions. For another writer, the time saved for commuters might be the most important aspect. The decision to start with your strongest or weakest point is one of style.

Style/ Eloquence

When we discuss style in academic writing, we generally mean the use of formal language appropriate for the given academic audience and occasion. Academics generally favor Standard American English and the use of precise language that avoids idioms , clichés , or dull, simple word choices. This is not to imply that these tropes are not useful; however, strong academic writing is typically objective and frequently avoids the use of first-person pronouns unless the disciplinary style and conventions suggest otherwise.

Some writing assignments allow you to choose your audience. In that case, the style in which you write may not be the formal, precise Standard American English that the academy prefers. For some writing assignments, you may even be asked to use, where appropriate, poetic or figurative language or language that evokes the senses. Additionally, instructors should be cognizant of second language learners and the variations in style when writing in a non-native language.

In all cases, it is important to understand what style of writing your audience expects, as delivering your argument in that style could make it more persuasive.

This section contains material from:

“Arguing.” In A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing , by Melanie Gagich and Emilie Zickel. Cleveland: MSL Academic Endeavors. Accessed July 2019. https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/csu-fyw-rhetoric/chapter/8-2-arguing/ . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Pronouncement, affirmation, or endorsement; a declaration or statement of belief, usually positive in nature.

An acknowledgement of at least one aspect of the other side of the argument  that admits or accepts validity or legitimacy.

A counterstatement or counterargument; to offer evidence that opposes the argument that is being made.

Motionless, inactive, idle, or sluggish; a lack of development, growth, or advancement.

A system involving rank. Hierarchical refers to a system that involves a hierarchy. For example, the military is a hierarchical system in which some people outrank others.

To take the position or side of the subject (rather than the object) which is the one doing the observing (rather than being observed); the belief, preference, or understanding of an individual.

A phrase that is not traditionally associated with the meaning that the words provide; idioms cannot be literally translated into another language. For example, when someone is “feeling under the weather,” they are feeling ill.

A stereotyped or corny phrase, expression, or idea that has lost its original meaning from overuse, usually over a long period of time. The saying “time flies when you’re having fun” is an example of a cliché.

A stereotypical or predictable literary convention or device such as a plot point (the damsel in distress), a figure of speech (metaphor, idiom, etc.), or theme or motif (red roses represent true love).

Impartiality or fairness; dispassionate or detached. Also refers to the goal, aim, or intention that someone or a group of people hope to achieve.

Having awareness.

4.1 Features of an Argument Copyright © 2022 by Terri Pantuso is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

ENGL001: English Composition I

Five essential parts of an argument.

Read article on the parts of an argument, especially warrants. How do warrants differ from reasons and evidence?

Why Does Little Red Schoolhouse (LRS) View Writing as Argument?

When we disagree about an issue, care deeply about an outcome, or try to convince others of the validity of our approach, we often resort to argument. Argument as it is depicted on television and experienced in times of stress or conflict carries with it many negative connotations of anger, high emotion, and even irrationality. But each of us also makes arguments every day, and in settings that help us become more rational, better informed, and more clearly understood.

Arguments help us to gather information from our own experience and that of others, to make judgments based on evidence, and to marshal information toward sound conclusions. Argument is appropriate when we seek understanding or agreement, when we want to solve a problem or answer a question, and when we want others to act or think in ways we deem beneficial, suitable, or necessary. Argument also comes in handy when we seek to convince, persuade, or produce change in our audience, and when circumstances require trust, respect, belief in our evidence or agreement with our reasoning.

Argument is everywhere – on television and radio, in politics and publications, and also in our day-to-day decisions about what to have for dinner, when to schedule the next meeting, and who should walk the family dog. As Colomb and Williams point out, the common notion that argument must be combative is built into our very language: opposing sides attack , defend , hold off , triumph , struggle , crush objections and slaughter competitors. On the other hand, in order to use argument as productive and collaborative communication, we must certainly find a way to transcend the vocabulary of argument-as-war. We must negotiate the audience's needs along with the speaker's agenda.

Argument is also about conversation. Although sometimes we forget, the best arguments are a forum for:

• Obtaining and expressing information;
• Airing and sharing assumptions and reasons;
• Establishing common ground;
• Coming to mutual agreement.

Productive argumentation starts with a problem. It makes us realize why we have an interest in seeing that problem solved. It also claims a solution, convincing its audience of the validity of that solution with evidence and reasons that it will accept.

Writing and Argument

The Little Red Schoolhouse (LRS) focus on argumentation raises writers' and readers' awareness of:

• The importance of audience;
• The intersecting languages of information and persuasion; and
• The reading process through which we share the tasks of critical thinking and decision-making.

Argument structure also helps writers to avoid:

• The formulaic "five paragraph essay" that is often assigned in high school ("Scientific progress is good. Here are several reasons why scientific progress is good. In conclusion, scientific progress is good.");
• The default structure of chronological order (First I set up the lab, then I opened my notebook, then performed the first step in my experiment…);
• Simple summary with no so what ; and
• Binary structures where two issues or ideas are described without connection to each other.

Preparing Your Argument

To prepare to make an effective argument you must first:

• Translate your topic into a problem statement ;
• Frame a situation that is debatable or contestable;
• Formulate a question about which reasonable people might disagree; and
• Find a claim your analysis has led you to assert.

Now you can begin to imagine what it will take to convince your audience. What evidence, methods, or models do they expect? What conventions must you follow to win approval?

Sketch Your Approach

• What do you want to show?
• Why should readers agree?
• Based on what evidence?
• What are some possible alternatives or objections?
• What conclusion will you offer, and why should your readers accept it as valuable?

The Five Parts of Argument

The questions that lead to your topic, broadly conceived, also steer you toward what The Craft of Argument formalizes in the five parts of argument .

• Acknowledgement and Response.

These Correspond to the Williams' and Colomb's Five Questions of Argument:

• What are you claiming?
• What reasons do you have for believing your claim?
• What evidence do you base those reasons on?
• What principle connects or makes your reasons relevant to your claims?
• What about such-and-such potential disagreement/difficulty?

Constructing Claims

We learn that, at bottom, an argument is just a claim and its support:

Reason therefore Claim

Claim because of Reason .

Your claim is your main point. It should either be clearly conceptual (seeking to change how we think) or clearly pragmatic (seeking to change how we act). Claims should, by definition, require good reasons. Audiences should be able to disagree with your claim and, by extension, to be convinced and converted by your evidence.

More about Claims

• Make sure your readers can recognize why your claim is significant.
• Ensure that your claim is clear and concise. Readers should be able to tell what is at stake and what principles you intend to use to argue your point.
• Confirm that the claim accurately describes the main tenets of the argument to follow.
• Moderate your claim with appropriate qualifiers like "many", "most", "often", in place of "all", "always", etc.

Evaluating Good Claims

• Your solution is possible.
• Your solution is ethical (moral, legal, fair, etc.).
• Your solution is prudent – it takes into consideration both the problem you seek to resolve and the possible ramifications of your proposal.

Reasons and Evidence

Most arguers know from experience that reasons and evidence help to convince audiences. In the simplest terms, reasons answer the question: "Why are you making that claim?" Evidence offers tangible support for reasons.

When stating reasons, always be aware of your audience. You will need to choose the reasons that support your evidence that are also the most likely to convince your specific readers or listeners. Knowing the general values and priorities of your readers will help you to determine what they will count as compelling reasons.

Knowing what kind of arguments and evidence they will expect from you will guide you in choosing reasons that meet those expectations.

Tailor your appeal to the specific needs and acknowledged concerns of your reading community, because arguments are always audience specific.

Evidence should be reliable and based upon authoritative and trustworthy research and sources. It should be appropriately cited, and ample enough to convince. Evidence should also be designed to appeal to your target audience's values and priorities.

When Arguing through Evidence

• Present evidence from general to specific.
• Build on what readers know.
• Do not rehearse your own work process; instead, support your conclusions.
• Use diagrams, graphs, and other visuals.
• Keep support appropriate and simple.
• Make sure data is authoritative/expert.
• Help the audience to know what is important.

The words reason and evidence are much more familiar to most students of written and oral argument than the term warrant . But reasons and evidence are most powerful when they are utilized within the structure of argument we have been discussing.

To be convincing, the reasons and evidence you present in support of your claim need to be connected through warrants. Warrants express a general belief or principle in a way that influences or explains our judgments in specific cases.

Take, for example, the old saying:  "Measure twice, cut once".

Expressing as it does a general belief or principle – that when you take the time to do a thing properly, you don't make mistakes – the saying provides a viable warrant for an argument like:

"It is never a good idea to hurry a task. [Reason] [Connected by the beliefs and assumptions expressed by the warrant to the supporting evidence that] Careless mistakes take longer to fix than it would to do things right the first time." [Evidence]

Warrants express justifying principles, shared beliefs, or general assumptions. They are the spoken or unspoken logic that connects your reasons to your evidence. Warrants take many forms, but Williams and Colomb emphasize that they always have or imply two parts:

• One articulating a general belief or circumstance.
• One stating a conclusion we can infer from applying that circumstance to a specific situation.

Warrants often take the form: Whenever X, then Y. For example, take the commonly held belief expressed by the old saying "When it rains, it pours". The same sentiment and set of assumptions could be described by the general truism "If one thing goes wrong, everything goes wrong". Whether implied or explicit, and whether it takes the form of a general observation or a cultural belief, a warrant states a broader principle that can be applied in a particular case to justify the thinking behind an argument.

More on Clear Warrants

Warrants connect your reasons to your claim in logical ways. Whether a warrant is assumed or implied, it is still crucial that the audience be able to recognize your warrant and be able to determine that they agree with or accept your warrant.

Questions for Determining Good Warrants

• Do readers know the warrant already?
• Will all readers think it is true?
• Will they see its connection to this circumstance or situation?
• If they think it is both valid and appropriate, will they think it applies to their family, corporation, or community?

Warranting: A Specific Case

Consider a case when an audience might not accept your argument unless it first accepts your warrant. Take, for example, the following discussion between a mother and her child.

Child (to mother): "I need new shoes."

Mother: "But why, what are your reasons?"

Child: "Because all the other kids have them." X

Child: "Because red is 'in' this season and my shoes are blue." X

Mother: "Sorry, but I don't accept your argument that you need new shoes."

Above all, warrants require common ground. In the example above, the success of the child's argument depends upon his mother's sharing the values and assumptions upon which the argument for new shoes is based.

Productive argument will require that the child find, and address, some common belief or assumption about what constitutes "need". While his mother might not be influenced by peer pressure or style trends, she probably does share a set of values that would ultimately lead to agreement (Common Ground).

Consider a situation in which the child's previous reasons had not convinced his mother to accept his argument, and we can see how compelling reasons and evidence can be developed alongside shared warrants.

Child: "I need new shoes because these ones have holes in them and it's the rainy season." √

Mother: "Well why didn't you say so?! I agree that you shouldn't be walking around with wet feet!"

We are most likely to accept an argument when we share a warrant. In this case, it is unstated, but implied:

Warrant = When shoes no longer protect the feet from stones and weather, it is time to buy new ones.

There is another way to look at warrants that don't necessarily fit a certain mold. If you believe in a general principle stated about general circumstances (for example, "People who fall asleep at work probably aren't getting enough sleep at home".), then you are likely to link a specific instance (of nodding off at your computer) with a specific conclusion (that you haven't gotten adequate rest). Warrants here can be defined as general truths that lead us to accepted conclusions.

Acknowledgement and Response

Acknowledgement and response can be included in your argument in order to:

• Produce trust;
• Mediate or moderate objections;
• Limit the scope of your claim;
• Demonstrate experience or immersion in a wider field or discipline.

Brainstorm useful concessions to potential dissenters by thinking about the difficulties or questions your argument is likely to produce. Within your argument, acknowledgements and responses often begin with: To be sure , admittedly , some have claimed , etc.

Concessions allow the writer to predict problems that might weaken an argument and respond with rebuttals and reassessments. Acknowledgement and response frequently employs terms like but , however , on the other hand , etc.

Using the Five Parts of Argument

After you have sketched out your full argument, and even after you have drafted the entire piece of writing, you should revisit your claim. Ask yourself: Does the claim still introduce and frame the discussion that follows? Are there elements of the claim that need to be revised? Built upon? Eliminated? Explained?

• Is your claim clear and concise?
• Is it contestable?
• Is there good evidence for your solution?
• Will your audience agree?

Evaluate and Revise Reasons

Consider the specific needs and perspectives of your audience and select reasons that will connect to their priorities and motivations. Make sure that you provide ample reasons for each claim or subclaim you assert. Order your reasons in a way that is logical and compelling: Depending on your argument, you may want to lead with your best reason or save your strongest reason for last. Finally, ask yourself whether any essential evidence is missing from your discussion of the problem.

• Do your reasons make a strong case for the validity of your claim?
• Can you imagine other reasons that would appeal more strongly to your audience?

Assess and Improve Evidence

If there are authorities to appeal to, experts who agree, or compelling facts that support your argument, make sure you have included them in full. Whether you are speaking from experience, research, or reading, make sure to situate yourself firmly in your field. Create confidence in your authority and establish the trustworthiness of your account.

• Have you consulted reputable sources?
• Have you conducted your research and formatted your findings according to accepted standards?
• What does your audience need to know to appreciate the solution you propose?
• What makes it easy or difficult to accept?
• What further support might you offer?

Scrutinize Your Warrants

If you can't articulate the connection between what you claim and why you believe the audience should accept your assertion, your readers probably can't either! Good warrants often take the form of assumptions shared by individuals, communities or organizations. They stem from a shared culture, experience, or perspective. If understanding your claim means sharing a particular set of beliefs or establishing common ground with your reader, make sure your argument takes time to do so.

• Can your audience easily connect your claim to your reasons?
• Are your warrants shared? Explicit? Implied?
• What unspoken agreements do your conclusions depend upon?

Concede and Explain

Gracefully acknowledge potential objections when it can produce trust and reinforce the fairness and authority of your perspective. Try to anticipate the difficulties that different types of readers might have with your evidence or reasoning

• Where are my readers most likely to object or feel unsettled?
• How can I concede potential problems while still advancing the authority of my claim?

Assessing and Revising Your Argument

By way of conclusion, we can revisit the issue of method. Little Red Schoolhouse (LRS) encourages thinking about the parts of argument in order to produce logic that is

• Easy to understand, and
• Easy to acknowledge or accept.

Argument structures comprehension by giving readers a framework within which to understand a given discussion. Argument supplies criteria for judgment, and connects reasons with claims through implicit or explicit warrants. Sometimes, crafting a good argument is as simple as asking yourself three basic questions:

• What do you want to say?
• Why should readers care?

When you set about answering these questions using the five parts of argument, you will hone introductions and thesis statements to make clear and precise claims, make relevant costs and benefits explicit, and connect reasons and evidence through shared and compelling warrants.

Examples taken or adapted from:

• Williams, J. (2005). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.
• Williams, J., Colomb, G. (200 3). The Craft of Argument. ( Concise ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Argumentative Speech Topics and ideas: A Complete Guide

An argumentative speech is a persuasive speech. Here, speakers try to encourage audiences to alter their views on a controversial issue.

Though they are alike in some manner, persuasive and argumentative speech contains different goals.

A persuasive speech focuses on sharing a perspective and asking the public to think it over. An argumentative speech aims to alter the viewpoint already detained by the audience.

This type of speech is challenging. So, the speaker should pick up the topic that he is confident at and come up with a strong argument.

When you are involved in debates with family or friends, you obviously tend to win or lose. The way you argue shows your capability to compel facts and concepts in support of a topic.

While losing an argument, chances are you only used the standpoint supporting your situation. In a perfect argumentative speech, there should be a strong claim and the points to support it.

For an argumentative speech, find a concrete and controversial argument to use as your foundation. These speeches generally focus on the topics discussed at the moment by society. Most of the topics of argumentative speech are derivative of political discussion.

This is most commonly noticed in the media. The selected topic might be social, religious, ethical, or political by nature. The public must be confident to revise their long-held values. They might ask to change detained convictions relevant to the recent evidence.

In fact, picking up a topic that is debatable is important to develop good speech. The topic should not include something which is already demonstrated or verified.

Instead, it should be logical enough to convince the audience. The speaker should come up with a strong opinion to make his speech realistic to the audience.

To be able to argue in a reasonable and logical way is a fine life skill. It helps to stand up for what you think is correct and let others give attention to your viewpoints.

For instance, if the topic includes “eating egg and milk affects your healthiness”. You evaluate the opponent and create your own topic like “Eating egg and milk does not affect your health”. Yet, you have to give strong points to support your answer.

Table of Contents

Terms to Present Argumentative Speech

Claims of fact, claims of value, claims of policy, 1. pick up debatable topic, 2. take a strong standpoint, 3. give some supportable arguments, 4. refute alternate positions, tips for delivering an argumentative speech:, 1. look for your topic, 2. recognize your standpoint, 3. carry out the research, 4. know who your opposition is, 5. know the facts, 6. choose the topic of your interest, list of argumentative speech topic, argumentative speech topics about economy, argumentative speech topics about science, argumentative speech topics about environment, argumentative speech topics about family, argumentative speech topics about technology, argumentative speech topics about health, argumentative speech topics about history, argumentative speech topics about politics, argumentative speech topics about religion, argumentative speech topics about sports, argumentative speech topics about relationships, argumentative speech topics about law, argumentative speech topics about life, argumentative speech topics about ethics,  conclusion.

These are some terms that help you to present an ideal argumentative speech:

• Claim – This is the main term that you should focus on. Try to give a strong standpoint. Support on the point, position, and the issue you are talking about. Do not forget the main purpose of the speech.
• Grounds – Grounds are the key information or the facts that you use to make your point more powerful and reliable. Make sure that the details you give are an appropriate reason for your claims in the initial place.

Argumentative Speech is based on:

It starts with the reality relevant to the evidence. For an instance, you drink too much alcohol and do not exercise. Then, you will surely put up the weight. If you control your drinks, then you can maintain the weight.

Claims of value include the belief something is correct or incorrect, good or bad. For an instance, punishing children is wrong. It does not improve the habits of your children.

Here you can also state “Punishing children is right”. They will think properly before doing anything wrong

Claims of the policy are taken from the course of action. For an instance, you should be able to vote through a driving license. There is a precise rule for the policy. It is realistic and superior compared to the current system.

Every child should learn different languages in school. It is vital to introduce teachers to the value of beginning foreign language experience.

While initiating the argumentative speech, get ready with strong arguments. You desire to give an influential impact right in front. Also, you might wish to leave a good impression on the audience hearing your speech.

Stay away from personal attacks. If you make the argument too boring, there will be a higher chance of losing your audience.

Besides, argumentative speech needs a powerful viewpoint on the topic that you are delivering. Remember, the goal is not to win your audience but to win the argument. You have to stand on your own point with an appropriate reason.

Essential components of an Argumentative speech:

The main goal of an argumentative essay is to influence others in your opinions. Generally, an argumentative speech addresses an audience with opposite opinions on a specific subject.

Here are four essential elements to focus on when developing an argumentative essay:

While picking up a topic, you should select the topic with more than a single side. For an instance, there is no way to discuss the topic of human smell with the nose. It is familiar fact that has no other strong points to discuss against.

While preparing for an argumentative speech, take a strong standpoint. Try to stick with the stance. This makes your speech powerful. Make sure you do not confuse the audience with any irrelevant points.

A good argument needs to have reasonable and convincing evidence. Better support your statement with information, figures, examples, and some relevant opinions. Also, argumentative speech does not contain unproven opinions. Make sure you research and present the argument that is a relevant argument.

At the end of a strong argumentative speech, you have to refute alternate positions. By dealing with the opponent, make some powerful arguments. Try to work on some common and stronger viewpoints.

• Look for a concrete and controversial argument to use as your base.
• Arrange your points properly. Arranging the points can be helpful while planning your thoughts and presenting them
• Give most of your time for research. Better research on your topics along with the topics which your opposition is likely to pick up.

How to develop an effective Argumentative Speech?

After picking up a fine controversial topic, you should work on some powerful points. Those points must make your speech influential. Start developing an outline that translates into better argumentative speech.

These are some points to consider while working on an argumentative speech:

From absorption to health, you can find many types of topics that you feel comfortable presenting.

At first, think about the topic that you are supporting. Are you supporting abortion or speaking against it? Most of the speaker loves to speak against abortion but should be confident to speak on the topic.

Better verify and try to prove the facts using some examples or supportive words. This makes your speech more powerful and interesting. Consider determining whether you are attempting to take the topic.  

You can definitely find the people who have worked for or else against the topic that you picked up earlier.

For this, you have to carry out the research well. But, this does not mean you have to copy from them. Just take your idea and use them in a better way. This helps to know what step you should take to move forward to make a good flow of the argument.

Each argumentative speech contains both for and against the side. The best probable approach that you can use is to know your opponent. Knowing how your opponent thinks and the points they use makes you easy to perform.

An argumentative speech might be weak if you do not provide any facts. For a good outcome, you need facts supporting your argument on the controversial topic. If you ignore this you might be in a problem while presenting the speech.

Be sure, you know and give the facts, and make your points strong. These facts reduce your risk of looking unprepared and unprofessional.

You cannot give a better outcome without passion. To present superior argumentative speech, you should have an interest in the topic. Better select the topic of your interest. This helps you to work and perform better. If you do not trust yourself and your topic, no one will as well.

Deciding on an arguable topic is essential to developing an effective argumentative speech. Better do not pick up the topic which needs great logic for convincing the audience.

You should have an extreme desire in the topic with a deep opinion on the subject. If he cannot fulfill these criteria, he might not provide influencing arguments.

Find here the List of Argumentative Speech Topics. They are great for developing arguments for debates, persuasive speech, and argumentation.

Argumentative Speech Topics about Education

• Mobile phones should be banned in schools for both students and teachers.
• Exams should be abolished.
• Exam scores do not reflect student performance.
• Mandatory dress code.
• Studying of foreign languages should begin from kindergarten age.
• College students should have freedom to choose their own courses.
• Sex education should be required in all schools.
• Benefits of attending a single-sex school.
• Essays do not demonstrate student’s knowledge on a topic.
• Home education should only be allowed for medical reasons.
• Education should be free to anyone.
• Teachers should have mandatory re-training every 5 years.
• Testing and choice are undermining education.
• Grades are not important.
• Bilingual education.
• CPR and first aid techniques should be a mandatory course.
• State colleges should be free to attend.
• Teachers should wear uniforms or obey a dress code.
• Why educational computer games should be used in school
• Music education should be placed back into schools
• Student Debts
• Do colleges put too much stock in standardized test scores?
• Price of Education and textbooks
• Popular literature is not as valuable as classical literature.
• Smoking and drinking on campus
• Workers should get four weeks paid vacation each year.
• The illegal immigrant workforce is good for the economy.
• Christmas is just a way for businesses to increase sales.
• Rich people should have tax breaks.
• Decreasing wealth tax is good for the economy.
• Salaries of actors, professional athletes and CEOs should be regulated and capped.
• Government aid for students should be based purely on academic performance.
• Taxes should be imposed on unhealthy foods to combat obesity.
• Paying the waiter hourly rate below minimum wage is unfair.
• Mortgage Crisis
• Consumer Debt
• Outsourcing jobs to foreign countries
• Equal pay for equal work
• Fuel Prices
• How nuclear power shaped the 21st century in electrical generation.
• Space exploration is a waste of money.
• Genetic Research is destroying humanity.
• NASA space landing on the moon was a hoax.
• Media’s effect on teen suicide.
• Stem cell research and the guidelines that control it.
• Hunting is good for the environment.
• Food shortage / world hunger.
• Crimes against the environment should be tougher.
• Vegetarianism is an ecologically thoughtful lifestyle.
• Destruction of the world’s forest is justified by a human need for land and food.
• Racing industry should be forced to use environmentally-friendly fuel.
• Working from home is good for the environment.
• Genetically modified food should be the answer to the world’s hunger problem.
• The government should support and subsidize alternative energy sources.
• Alternative Energy and Hybrid Vehicles can help save our planet.
• Nuclear power is better than solar power.
• Future of recycling.
• Advantages of recycling water.
• Alternative Fuels.
• Every family with children filing for divorce must go through a mandatory ‘cooling off’ period.
• Couples should be banned from adopting overseas.
• Future parents should take parenting classes and pass tests before having a child.
• Physical punishment is good practice for raising children.
• Do curfews keep teens out of trouble?
• Does access to condoms prevent teen pregnancy?
• Violent video games and toys should not be allowed.
• Technology is making people less creative.
• Human beings are becoming slaves of modern technology.
• Does technology limit creativity?
• Technology makes us lose most of our traditions and culture.
• New technologies create new problems.
• Positive effects of technology on society.
• Modern technology has increased material wealth but not happiness.
• Social Networking Sites had an impact on changing us for the worse.
• Internet censorship is unnecessary.
• Whether the internet has made research easier and more convenient.
•  Life was better when technology was less and more simple.
• Online friends are more effective than real friends.
• Internet Privacy.
• Torrents and internet pirating.
• Social networks are killing sincere relationships.
• Organ donation should be mandatory.
• Health risks of smoking are exaggerated.
• Vaccinations should be compulsory.
• Veganism is an unhealthy way to raise kids.
• Breast-feeding is one of the most important things a mother can give to a child.
• Terminally ill patients should be allowed to use heroin.
• Knowing your ancestry is important for health.
• All farmers should go organic.
• Lapses in food safety as a result of a complex interplay of factors.
• Music Therapy.
• The need of teen depression prevention.
• Drug addiction is a sickness.
• Running is unhealthy.
• Fast food, soda, chips and other unhealthy food should be heavily taxed.
• Bread is bad for your health.
• Child obesity.
• Any products that are believed to cause cancer should have a  warning label.
• The only difference between normal and organic food is the cost.
• Dangers of herbal remedies.
• Smoking a pipe is more harmful than smoking cigarettes.
• Denying health insurance on a basis of a pre-existing condition is against human rights.
• Athletes who are caught using steroids should be banned from the professional sport for life.
• Stretching before and after exercise is overrated.
• A vegetarian diet is as healthy as a diet containing meat.
• Eating meat and dairy is bad for your body.
• GMOs are bad for health and should be avoided at any cost.
• Why slavery was good for society back in the 1800s.
• Adolf Hitler was a great leader.
• Slavery and its effects on global economic developments.
• Why Reagan’s “War on Drugs” had negative effects.
• Many Caribbean people do not understand their heritage and history.
• Famous people (actors, athletes) should not be allowed to become politicians.
• The War in Iraq was justified.
• Invading other countries, as long as for good cause, is justified.
• Illegal immigrants should get an asylum.
• Democracy is the best form of government.
• Why should we trust Official Statistics?
• War as an instrument of foreign policy.
• Voting should be compulsory for all citizens.
• Compulsory military service is good for society and the country.
• Voting age should be lowered.
• Terrorism is a major issue in the world because innocent people are affected.
• The assassination can never be justified.
• Why electronic voting is not effective.
• Downsides of multiculturalism
• Can racial profiling be useful?
• Churches should be required to pay taxes.
• Racialist blames are often used as a great excuse to shut down dialogue.
• The world would be a more peaceful place without religions.
• Life after death.
• Evolution vs. Creationism.
• There should be no religion in schools.
• Islamic Fundamentalism.
• Religion is a force for evil.
• Students should learn about world religions in public schools.
• Jehovah witnesses.
• Why hockey should allow fights.
• Not all great sportsmen can be good coaches. 
• For athletes: Discipline is more important than talent.
• Female athletes train better with female coaches.
• Chess is not a sport.
• Should players’ jerseys display ads?
• Should there be a set age range for basketball players?
• Can gambling be legalized as a professional sport?
• Spousal Abuse.
• Polygamy creates healthy relationships.
• Gender equality is a myth.
• Having sex with a prostitute is not cheating.
• Does age matter in relationships? What age is appropriate for dating?
• Men should be forced to take paternity leave from work.
• Gender does not affect learning.
• Guns should be made illegal.
• Minors should be tried for murder at any age.
• Social Security and Medical Reform are non-negotiable ways out of the debt crisis.
• Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
• Plastic surgery should be illegal for anyone under 18.
• Identity Theft.
• Ban on smoking in public places is undemocratic.
• Euthanasia should be legalized.
• Prostitution should be legalized.
• The taboo on recreational drugs is unjustified.
•  Driving speed limits should be lifted in areas with low accident risk.
• DUI offenders should give up their driver license for a year.
• Laws to protect the victims of domestic abuse should be enforced.
• Making drugs illegal creates an environment for crime and violence.
• Fast Food advertisements and promotions should be banned.
• Retirement should be made compulsory at the age of 60.
• Cell phones and driving.
• Billboards should not be allowed on interstate highways.
• Acceptance of all types of people.
• Today’s world is a dangerous place to live in.
• People don’t enjoy what they have. They constantly seek for more.
• Benefits of having friends.
• Modern offices should have facilities for an afternoon nap.
• Would you rather be lucky, rich, or intelligent?
• Reality television makes people stupid and should be regulated.
• Has television become out-dated?
• Watching television makes people smarter.
• Banning some books and movies can help society.
• Assisted Suicide.
• Genetic Research.
• Is human cloning ethical?
• The Ethics of Capital Punishment.
• Euthanasia is not morally acceptable.
• Abortion is inhumane and murder.
• Abortions should be legal in cases of rape and incest.
• DNA experiments on human embryos are unethical and should not be allowed.
• Torture is an acceptable measure to prevent terrorism.
• Wearing fur is unethical.
• Cultural treasures should be returned to their countries of origin.
• Do animals have rights? Using animals for scientific research is inhumane.
• Spaying and neutering pets should be mandatory.
• Zoos, aquariums, and circus violate animal rights and should be shut down.
• Should scientists bring back extinct species through cloning?
• Hunting is unethical and should not be allowed.
• Doctors are better than Lawyers Are beauty pageants exploitative?
• Feminism is bad for society.
• The Miss America pageant is sexist.

The above-mentioned topics and tips for argumentative speech should help you prepare and deliver an argumentative speech. If you have any suggestions or feedback, please let me know in the comment below.

The Top Characteristics Of A Good Speech

“I tell my story, not because it is unique, but because it is not. It is the story of many…

“I tell my story, not because it is unique, but because it is not. It is the story of many girls… Though I appear as one girl, one person, who is 5ft 2in tall, if you include my high heels, I am not a lone voice, I am many. I am Shazia. I am Kainat Riaz. I am Kainat Somro. I am Mezon. I am Amina. I am those 66 million girls who are out of school.”

The youngest-ever Nobel Prize winner, Malala Yousafzai, then 17, uttered these evocative words at her acceptance speech in 2014.

A good speech such as this one is provocative, inspiring and personal. It is structured to present a clearly defined message and convey the speaker’s ideas and thoughts.

At work, you may be asked to speak at meetings, seminars and conferences. These are important events in your professional career that will help you establish your credibility, and build your personal brand and professional network.

Learning how to deliver a good speech will equip you for career success. Let’s look at the characteristics of a good speech to push you in the right direction.

Characteristics Of A Good Speech

If you want to make a good speech that leaves a lasting impression, focus on what you’re going to speak and how. A good speech isn’t only about your words but also how you present yourself. Body language and gestures play a critical role in transforming an average speech into a memorable one.

If you’re wondering what a good speech is, here are some of its qualities:

Clear Message And Key Ideas

A good speech always starts with a key idea and a well-defined message. Many people make the mistake of burying their ideas in the middle or at the end. That’s a mistake. The audience may get distracted halfway into your speech, and leave without even knowing what you’re talking about. If you want people to understand your big idea, present it right at the start. That will set the context for the rest of the speech.

Impactful Oral Delivery

Remember to consider every aspect of the speech. Your oral delivery—pitch, pause and pace—also influences the audience’s response. ( klonopin ) Modulate your voice and pace to keep your listeners interested in your words. You should be also prepared to make impromptu adjustments to your delivery if you sense the audience drifting away. For instance, if you’re talking about statistical data, make it interesting by asking questions or engaging in a dialogue with the audience. This way, you keep them involved.

Sprinkled With Personal Anecdotes

Don’t rely only on facts and figures. If you can support your claims with personal experiences, it’ll make it more interesting. Start with a personal anecdote that’s linked to your big idea and that your audience can relate to. Humor is also a fun way to break the ice and put everyone at ease.

Informative, But Not Repetitive

Your speech needs to be informative and packed with fresh and new information to have an impact. Be careful not to recycle old ideas packaged in fancy words. . Being original and sharing relevant, critical and helpful information will make your speech memorable. Edit your speech carefully to ensure there are no repetitions or data gaps. You can also add inspiring quotes for a good speech.

Powerful Nonverbal Cues

One of the most important qualities of a good speech is nonverbal communication . You may believe that your words do all the work. But your posture, facial expressions and gestures are equally, if not more, important. Imagine someone making a speech with a blank expression on their face or just reading their words off a page without emotion. That doesn’t make for a good speech. It’s about building tension, asking provoking questions and engaging with the audience. There’s power in using nonverbal cues, like making eye contact with someone in the audience. Using these cues well can greatly improve the quality of your speech.

There are many more characteristics of a good speech that you can incorporate. Harappa Education’s Speaking Effectively course is designed for professionals who want to improve their communication skills. You can use these skills for public speaking or formal workplace conversations, to connect and empathize with others. Build meaningful connections, share ideas effectively, and deliver memorable speeches with our high-impact online course.

Explore topics & skills such as Public Speaking , Verbal Communication , Oral Communication , Speaking Skills & Oratory Skills from Harappa Diaries and learn to express your ideas with confidence.

Other Links

• At Parturient Porta Vestibulum Integer Sociosqu Vitae Aptent Aptent Praesent Rhoncus Urna

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. Ulrimately, 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.

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 fundamentatlly 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 Differs 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.

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.

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.

Joe Biden Mocked by Critics After West Point Speech Gaffe

P resident Joe Biden was mocked by his critics on social media after he seemed to have lost his train of thought during a speech to West Point cadets graduating from the United States Military Academy in New York on Saturday.

Biden talked about current conflicts that the world is facing, including the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. He mentioned the various missions that service members are conducting in Ukraine to help the war-torn nation in the conflict.

"We are standing strong with Ukraine and we will stand with them. We are standing against a man who I have known well for many years, a brutal tyrant, and we will not walk away," the president said.

When talking about how Russian President Vladimir Putin had launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, starting a war that is now over two years old, Biden seemed to trail off.

"Putin was certain that NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] would fracture. I met with him right after being elected president before, right after I was sworn in, and we talked about this very issue. The fall, he attacked that fall—he decided to, look, I shouldn't get into this probably. It gets me a little excited," Biden said.

He continued: "Putin was certain that NATO would fracture. I said to him in Switzerland, if you want to Finlandization of Ukraine, you're going to get the Finlandization, you're going to get the NATO-ization of Europe. He had a brazen vision which we stepped up and stopped. Instead, today, the greatest defense alliance in the history of the world, stronger than ever."

Finlandization is a term used in diplomatic discourse that refers to Finland's neutral stance during the Cold War. In 1948, Finland signed a treaty with the Soviet Union. As part of the treaty, Finland could not join Western security and defense organizations. The treaty dissolved in 1992 and Finland ultimately joined NATO in April 2023.

RNC Research, an account on X, formerly Twitter , managed by the Republican National Committee (RNC), posted a clip of Biden's speech gaffe on Saturday, writing that Biden was "confused again."

X user @TiffMoodNukes, who has amassed 179,700 followers, wrote: "Joe Biden is finished."

"Breaking News: Joe Biden couldn't give his speech at West Point," X user Wendy Patterson, who has 174,700 followers, posted.

X user @JannaPart2, who identifies as part of former President Donald Trump 's MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement and has 108,700 followers, jokingly wrote , "Is this dude smokin' crack ???" and attached a meme of Biden that read: "If You're Thinking Of Voting For Me, Don't."

Newsweek reached out to the White House and Biden's campaign via email for comment.

Biden, the Democratic incumbent, and Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, have faced criticism for various speech gaffes as they campaign for November's presidential election. At a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, last week, Trump made a series of bizarre comments , calling Hannibal Lecter, the serial killer protagonist from The Silence of the Lambs , "a wonderful man." He also accidentally called former President Jimmy Carter "Jimmy Connors."

With Biden being 81 years old and Trump nearing 78, mental fitness has been a major talking point of this campaign cycle .

According to a Pew Research Center poll from last month, 47 percent of registered voters are not at all confident that Biden has the mental fitness needed for the job and 35 percent said the same for Trump. The poll was conducted from April 8 to 14 and surveyed 7,166 registered voters. The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.

Related Articles

• Justice Samuel Alito's 'Dumb' Flag Flying Rebuked by Federal Judge
• Mary Trump's Warning About Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas
• Pete Buttigieg Ridiculed for Joe Biden's $7.5 Billion 'Massive Failure'
• Marjorie Taylor Greene Wants to Invest in Democratic Stronghold

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

At Morehouse, Biden says dissent should be heard because democracy is 'still the way'

Stephen Fowler

Jeongyoon Han

President Biden speaks to graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday in Atlanta. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption

President Biden speaks to graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday in Atlanta.

President Biden told Morehouse College's graduating class of 2024 that he's committed to serving Black voters while defending freedom and democracy in the face of "extremist forces" that he says threaten the soul of the nation.

With just six months until the general election, the speech, which was filled with religious themes of struggle and resilience, also served as a continuation of Biden's warning to his supporters of what he thinks the country would look like if Donald Trump is elected again.

"They don't see you in the future of America, but they're wrong," he said. "To me, we make history, not erase it. We know Black history is American history."

The president's commencement address at Morehouse, a historically Black school in Atlanta, also comes as polling shows potentially lower support for his reelection efforts among Black voters and young voters, and as campus protests over conflict in Gaza have disrupted graduations around the country.

Biden said he understood angst over the direction of the country, acknowledged "dissent about America's role in the world" and said that those who have different views should have their voices heard in the name of democracy.

"That's my commitment to you," he said. "To show you: democracy, democracy democracy — it's still the way."

Graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement bow their heads Sunday in Atlanta. President Biden addressed the graduating class of 2024 and warned about "extremist forces" he says threaten the soul of the nation. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption

Graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement bow their heads Sunday in Atlanta. President Biden addressed the graduating class of 2024 and warned about "extremist forces" he says threaten the soul of the nation.

His speech is also one of many events on his recent trip aimed at speaking to Black voters, following events with plaintiffs in the historic Brown v. Board Supreme Court case, meetings with Black Greek Letter Organizations, often known as the Divine Nine, and before he headlines an NAACP dinner in Detroit.

For weeks, several college and university campuses around the country have been roiled with student protests and encampments expressing opposition against Biden and U.S. policies and involvement around conflict in Gaza.

Biden will cap off a week of outreach to Black Americans with Morehouse commencement

Biden is set for the Morehouse graduation. Students are divided

Morehouse has seen student demonstrations, but not occupation of campus spaces or clashes with law enforcement. Outside of the ceremony, a small number of protesters gathered while the commencement itself did not see any major disruptions.

Last week, Morehouse College President David Thomas said he would rather halt proceedings than have students escorted away for protesting.

"If my choice is 20 people being arrested on national TV on the Morehouse campus, taken away in zip ties during our commencement, before we would reach that point, I would conclude the ceremony," he said on NPR's Weekend Edition .

An attendee stands in protest with their back to President Biden as Biden speaks to graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday in Atlanta. John Bazemore/AP hide caption

An attendee stands in protest with their back to President Biden as Biden speaks to graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday in Atlanta.

Those concerns did not come to pass. Apart from the heightened security and increased media presence, Biden's speech was met with a similar response to a typical college graduation ceremony.

More than 400 graduating students walked across the stage Sunday, and during Biden's speech a handful of students, some wearing keffiyehs , turned their chairs around to face away from the president.

After the ceremony, Morehouse issued a statement praising the graduating class and their intentionally muted response to Biden.

"It is fitting that a moment of organized, peaceful activism would occur on our campus while the world is watching to continue a critical conversation," the statement reads. "We are proud of the resilient class of 2024's unity in silent protest, showing their intentionality in strategy, communication, and coordination as a 414-person unit."

DeAngelo Fletcher, Morehouse College's valedictorian, closed his address to his classmates by addressing global conflict, particularly the Israel-Hamas war.

"For the first time in our lives, we've heard the global community sing one harmonious song that transcends language and culture," he said. "It is my sense as a Morehouse Man, nay — as a human being — to call for an immediate and a permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip."

Biden's speech at Morehouse comes with intense scrutiny as many presidential horse race polls show the president lagging with young voters, Black voters and other nonwhite groups that helped propel him to a narrow victory against Trump in 2020.

Those polls — for now — signal a drop in support for Biden but not necessarily an equal shift toward Trump. There are also signs that some of the displeasure with Biden is more pronounced among people who aren't as likely to vote in November.

While facing a nominal challenge in the Democratic presidential primary, Biden's best-performing areas have often come in places with a large share of Black voters. For example, in Georgia's primary contest 95% of Black voters pulled a Democratic ballot, and Biden won 95% of the overall vote.

While some students, faculty and alumni expressed opposition to Biden's selection as the commencement speaker, reaction on campus during the graduation ceremony was largely positive.

Dr. Tiffany Johnson, a 50-year-old who came to the campus green at 4:30 a.m. to see her son graduate, was also excited to see Biden.

"He is the leader of the free world, the most important job in the world, and for him to come to speak to [Morehouse] graduates, to inspire them, is phenomenal," Johnson said.

Johnson said Black voters who might not support Biden are part of a "bandwagon" that do not understand what he has done for the community, and said his speech would be an ideal opportunity to share his accomplishments.

In the speech, Biden touted a track record that he says makes key investments in Black communities, including a record $16 billion funding package toward historically Black colleges and universities, protecting voting rights, and creating economic policies that strengthens Black businesses.

• morehouse college
• black voters
• young voters
• Donald Trump
• graduation ceremony
• commencement address

Forget everything you think you know about what the Trump jury will do

As the former president’s trial wraps up, it’s time to acknowledge that the public experience is vastly different than the jurors’.

Very few Americans have seen what is happening in the Manhattan courtroom where former president Donald Trump is on trial. We hear about it, read news articles about it or watch televised discussions about it. But beyond those lucky enough to earn a spot in the courtroom on any given day, peoples’ visual understanding of what’s unfolding there depends on courtroom sketches, an allegory-of-the-cave -level approximation of reality.

Sign up for the How to Read This Chart newsletter

This is fitting. Our experience of what has happened and what it means is fundamentally different than the experience of the people who will ultimately decide Trump’s fate: the jury. With the defense wrapping up its case Tuesday, it’s a good moment to remember that what the jury has seen and what it is contemplating is very, very different than what you or I have seen or what we contemplate from the outside.

Put another way: Forget what you think you know about what will happen next.

Allow me to establish some credentials on this topic. In spring 2009, I was called for jury duty in New York City. I ended up serving as Juror No. 3 or People of the State of New York vs. Anthony Marshall and Francis Morrissey — a trial that stretched until October of that year.

The case centered on Brooke Astor, a well-known New York socialite who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease before her death. Her son, Anthony Marshall, was accused of working with his attorney, Morrissey, to change and amend her will so that Marshall and his wife received money that would otherwise go to New York charities. For months, we heard testimony from witnesses called by the prosecution outlining Astor’s final years and the actions of her son and his lawyer. Marshall’s attorneys didn’t call witnesses in his defense, surprising many of the jurors; as I recall, Morrissey’s only called one.

A lot of our time — perhaps half of it — was spent not in the courtroom but the jury room, down a short hallway from where the case was tried. It was dominated by a large table around which we sat while waiting to be called back to the jury box — or, on some occasions, to be released for the day. It was often boring. One day, we all hid in the adjacent restrooms when we knew the bailiff was coming to get us; he was understandably surprised to find the jury room empty when he arrived.

We understood that we were waiting for some legal issue to be adjudicated but, crucially, we didn’t know then and never learned what those issues were. The lawyers and the judge were discussing what evidence might be allowed or the constraints of a witness’s testimony, debates that would make it into media coverage of the trial. But we weren’t privy to any of it. Our experience of the case and the broader situation was constrained by what we saw in the courtroom. We were given notepads on which to record our observations, but we didn’t even get to keep those — they were collected and only returned to us when we reached the point of deliberation.

After the prosecution had presented its closing arguments, framing (as had the defense) its case by picking out the evidence on which it hoped we would focus, we were given instructions about reaching a verdict. Our task was not simply to determine whether Marshall and Morrissey had committed a crime. It was, instead, to figure out whether they had committed the specific crimes for which they were indicted, crimes with specific criteria that established their commission. If there was any reasonable way to conclude that the defendants hadn’t met those criteria, then they were innocent. If not: guilty.

When we walked into the jury room to begin our deliberations, I did not expect it to take long. To me, the criteria had clearly been met in some regards and clearly not in others. I naively assumed everyone had reached the same conclusions. Obviously, they had not. It took us 11 days to finalize our verdicts on the various counts at issue, including our allowing ourselves to sleep on our final decisions before returning them on the day they were handed down.

Over the course of those 11 days, we deliberated . We took occasional votes to finalize our consensus on certain charges but spent most of the time making our cases to one another. We needed unanimity, as you probably know, but not every juror responded to the evidence or the arguments in the same way. So we had to figure out how to reach consensus with that additional boundary. We had to match the evidence shown in court to the laws included in the indictment — and within the constraints of interpersonal differences in how people approached those prior two elements.

There was at least one charge on which I entered the room thinking reasonable doubt existed but on which I was later convinced of guilt. Other jurors entered thinking that guilt had been determined but were ultimately convinced of innocence. We treated the task seriously and engaged in it earnestly. And no one — ourselves included — could have predicted how the evidence and the law and the deliberations would combine for the specific outcome we reached.

Many of those who you see on television discussing the Trump case or who you read analyzing it in The Washington Post are veterans of criminal cases and courtrooms. They have experience in seeing how juries react to presented evidence and can draw conclusions about likely outcomes as a result. But — even more so than the Astor trial — the Trump trial is a unique event, one in which there’s been a lot of rumination and consideration leading observers to draw conclusions about what’s likely to happen once the case is in the jury’s hands.

I would caution people, based on my own experience, to remember that their experience from the outside is as different than the jury’s as the courtroom sketches are from the reality of being there in person. And I would note that Trump’s guilt will ultimately be decided not on whether the public thinks the case has been made or even on whether the jury does, but instead on the conversation the jury has within the constraints of evidence and the law to which they have been exposed.

And no one can reliably predict how that conversation will unfold.

Next few years will be 'most dangerous' UK has ever known, Rishi Sunak to say in 'major' speech

The prime minister will outline "the stark choice facing the UK public" ahead of the general election, in what is described as a "major speech" by Downing Street. It is not clear what specific ideas he will set out.

Political reporter @fayebrownSky

Monday 13 May 2024 10:52, UK

Rishi Sunak will give a speech on Monday setting out "bold ideas to change society" - as he seeks to regain momentum following the defection of one of his MPs to Labour and a hammering at the local elections.

In what is being billed by Downing Street as a "major speech" in central London, the prime minister will outline "the stark choice facing the UK public" ahead of the general election later this year.

Mr Sunak has suggested he will go to the polls in the autumn, with Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron telling Sky News on Sunday that voters need time "to see our plan is working" .

In a bid to revive his faltering premiership, the Tory leader will say: "I have bold ideas that can change our society for the better, and restore people's confidence and pride in our country.

"I feel a profound sense of urgency. Because more will change in the next five years than in the last 30.

"I'm convinced that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous yet most transformational our country has ever known."

👉 Tap here to follow Politics at Jack and Sam's wherever you get your podcasts 👈

It is not clear what specific ideas the prime minister will set out.

A trail of the speech released by Downing Street says he will discuss safeguarding the nation's security against threats like war and rising global immigration.

Mr Sunak will also set out his intention to capitalise safely on the opportunities presented by artificial intelligence.

He will go on to say: "Our country stands at a crossroads.

"Over the next few years, from our democracy to our economy to our society - to the hardest questions of war and peace - almost every aspect of our lives is going to change.

"How we act in the face of these changes - not only to keep people safe and secure but to realise the opportunities too - will determine whether or not Britain will succeed in the years to come.

"And this is the choice facing the country."

The speech comes after a difficult week for Mr Sunak, who faced his second defection to Labour after Dover MP Natalie Elphicke crossed the floor to join the opposition benches shortly before PMQs on Wednesday.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ms Elphicke, considered to be on the right of the Tory party, blamed the "broken promises of Rishi Sunak's tired and chaotic government", and said key deciding factors for switching have been "housing and the safety and security of our borders".

The shock move made her the second Tory MP to join the Labour Party in 11 days after former minister Dan Poulter defected to the opposition , blaming NHS "chaos".

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Mr Sunak has also come under pressure after the Conservatives suffered a mauling at the local elections, losing nearly 500 council seats, the Backpool South by-election and the West Midlands mayoralty in a bruising set of results.

In the wake of the defeats, Mr Sunak was facing calls to tack both further right and further to the centre.

Time is running out to make up ground against Labour ahead of the election, which has to be held by 25 January at the latest.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

Related Topics

• Rishi Sunak

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• May 24, 2024   •   25:18 Whales Have an Alphabet
• May 23, 2024   •   34:24 I.C.C. Prosecutor Requests Warrants for Israeli and Hamas Leaders
• May 22, 2024   •   23:20 Biden’s Open War on Hidden Fees
• May 21, 2024   •   24:14 The Crypto Comeback
• May 20, 2024   •   31:51 Was the 401(k) a Mistake?
• May 19, 2024   •   33:23 The Sunday Read: ‘Why Did This Guy Put a Song About Me on Spotify?’
• May 17, 2024   •   51:10 The Campus Protesters Explain Themselves
• May 16, 2024   •   30:47 The Make-or-Break Testimony of Michael Cohen
• May 15, 2024   •   27:03 The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System
• May 14, 2024   •   35:20 Voters Want Change. In Our Poll, They See It in Trump.
• May 13, 2024   •   27:46 How Biden Adopted Trump’s Trade War With China
• May 10, 2024   •   27:42 Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand

I.C.C. Prosecutor Requests Warrants for Israeli and Hamas Leaders

The move sets up a possible showdown between the international court and israel with its biggest ally, the united states..

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Patrick Kingsley

Produced by Will Reid ,  Diana Nguyen and Shannon M. Lin

Edited by Liz O. Baylen and Michael Benoist

Original music by Elisheba Ittoop

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

This week, Karim Khan, the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, requested arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the country’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant.

Patrick Kingsley, the Times’s bureau chief in Jerusalem, explains why this may set up a possible showdown between the court and Israel with its biggest ally, the United States.

On today’s episode

Patrick Kingsley , the Jerusalem bureau chief for The New York Times.

Background reading

Why did a prosecutor go public with the arrest warrant requests ?

The warrant request appeared to shore up domestic support for Mr. Netanyahu.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Patrick Kingsley is The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, leading coverage of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. More about Patrick Kingsley

Advertisement

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• American Rescue Plan
• Coronavirus Resources
• Disability Resources
• Disaster Recovery Assistance
• Equal Employment Opportunity
• Guidance Search
• Health Plans and Benefits
• Registered Apprenticeship
• International Labor Issues
• Labor Relations
• Leave Benefits
• Major Laws of DOL
• Other Benefits
• Retirement Plans, Benefits and Savings
• Spanish-Language Resources
• Termination
• Unemployment Insurance
• Veterans Employment
• Whistleblower Protection
• Workers' Compensation
• Workplace Safety and Health
• Youth & Young Worker Employment
• Breaks and Meal Periods
• Continuation of Health Coverage - COBRA
• FMLA (Family and Medical Leave)
• Full-Time Employment
• Mental Health
• Office of the Secretary (OSEC)
• Administrative Review Board (ARB)
• Benefits Review Board (BRB)
• Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB)
• Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
• Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
• Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB)
• Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
• Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
• Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ)
• Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs (OCIA)
• Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)
• Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
• Office of Inspector General (OIG)
• Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
• Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM)
• Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (OASP)
• Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
• Office of the Solicitor (SOL)
• Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)
• Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOMBD)
• Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
• Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)
• Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
• Women's Bureau (WB)
• Agencies and Programs
• Meet the Secretary of Labor
• Leadership Team
• Budget, Performance and Planning
• Careers at DOL
• Privacy Program
• Recursos en Español
• News Releases
• Economic Data from the Department of Labor
• Email Newsletter

Remarks by Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su at an Event to Promote Good Jobs for All (As Delivered)

Chicago, IL May 23, 2024

Thank you all so much, and good morning. It is so wonderful to look out and see all of you.

Tamara, thank you for your story. Thank you for your honesty. Thank you for your perseverance, your guts, and your call for change. We need to make all of those things happen. And I am here because it’s stories like yours that makes today’s announcement and all of our work so meaningful.

I also want to recognize IDOT’s Brandy Phillips. Brandy, where did you go? Thank you so much for your leadership in this and also to IDOT Secretary Omer Osman. And also to Illinois Director of Labor Jane Flanagan: we were here together last year, building to this moment, and we’ll continue to build together. I very much appreciate you being here and all that you’re doing. Of course, with the state leaders, I have to also acknowledge my friend, Governor Pritzker, who is really stalwart in this space and understands what it means to build right.

Where’s Jazz? Jazz Allen. Jazz, your leadership, your story also, your energy, all that you bring to this, it is my honor to be back here again to support and celebrate the work that you’re doing always. And to Tina, come on forward. Tina, thank you also for your leadership. You, me, and Jazz have been in the same space a number of times, which tells me that I’m doing my job right. So thank you very, very much. And to Chicago Women in Trades, to Jane.

Jane, thank you also. Truly, Chicago Women in Trades is making big things happen.

And to understand just how big, I want to take us back for a moment to where we were. Remember January 2021. COVID was raging, and there was no national plan to get it under control. Unemployment was very high. And people, when they went to the store, didn’t know if they’d be able to find toilet paper.

Since then, we've come a long way. More jobs have been created since President Biden came into office than under any other president in this same period of time.

At the same time, the unemployment rate in this country is lower for the longest stretch than it’s been since the 1960s.

You all know this too. None of that happens by accident. Leadership matters. And President Biden’s vision of an economy that is built from the middle out and the bottom up—where we leave no one behind—is a key to that progress.

Remember something else from those years. I know you all know well: the promise of an infrastructure week that never materialized and became a punch line. We’ve also turned that around. Under President Biden’s agenda, we started investing in America again.

In fact, we’re making historic investments in our infrastructure, in the kind of projects that Director Phillips talked about, in safer roads and bridges, in modernizing airports, in making sure that every family who turns on the faucet home gets clean drinking water, and every community has access to high speed, reliable internet. These should not be luxuries. These should be basic things, and we have to be intentional about building them if we want them.

In fact, in Illinois alone, we have invested $16.6 billion—with a “b”—including more than $11 billion dollars in transportation infrastructure.  

We’re not just going to build and repair roads and bridges in this state. All of these investments are creating good jobs, including good union jobs. Because all of the women in this space know that if you want a job done right, you also want a union worker to do it.  

We need to connect people to those jobs. And Chicago tradeswomen are not only building the physical infrastructure, the physical roads and bridges in your communities that connect people. Chicago Women in Trades, CWIT, is building the roads and bridges that connect women to those good jobs.

So our workforce system is infrastructure too. It’s the roads and bridges that connect people to the good jobs they want and need and employers to the people that they want and need. But just like our physical infrastructure, our workforce infrastructure has some cracks. It’s got some potholes. It has not been built to reach every community the way that it needs to.  

Not only that, but for far too long, we’ve heard that “people don’t have the right skills” becomes an excuse to leave entire communities out of opportunity. No. Not this time.

We need strong bridges, the bridges from poverty to prosperity, from racial exclusion and real equity. And that’s the kind of bridges that are being built here in this space by the people in this room.

In President Biden’s America, we want to build it in communities all across the country. We want a workforce opportunity infrastructure worthy of all of America and inclusive of all of these communities.

At an event last year, I announced a $1.35 million investment in CWIT, in leaders like Jane, like Jazz, like Tina, like Tamara and Lauren. The leaders who are the women and are helping other women work on these projects.

And today, we’re here as IDOT and CWIT join forces to further reinforce this opportunity infrastructure. Today’s announcement is going to help us build opportunity infrastructure right here in Chicago and across Illinois. And to get it done, we need everyone at the table, which is why I am so delighted to look out and see so many of you here. We need employers and industry associations. We need unions. We need workers. We need community-based organizations. And we need government. And yes, we need women.

So the Biden-Harris Administration is in this with you. We just announced earlier this month another $47 million to build the opportunity infrastructure across this country the right way. And President Biden is investing in America. And tradeswomen and men are building America.

And I said leadership matters. So to all the leaders, to the credits of the state’s great leaders who are in this room and the leaders of CWIT, you’ve come together to commit to creating good jobs for women and for all of Illinois workers.  

We all know that good jobs change lives. It’s about more than a paycheck. It’s about dignity. It’s about respect. It's about how you build wealth in the community and how you provide for your family, and we have to make sure that happens in every single community.

So let me close with this. Just last month, women’s labor force participation rate in this country was the highest on record ever, going back to when this data was first collected in 1948. Yeah.

So women have powered this nation’s economic recovery. And women can do anything if given the chance. So we’re here in Chicago because here with the people in this room, women and women of color are getting that chance.

I’m very proud to build this opportunity infrastructure in the state with all of you. Let’s keep building together. And with that, let’s talk more.

Delivered By Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su