midterm review

Midterm review - CHAPTER 1 • ARGUMENT 1 refers to the claims that people make • ARGUMENT 2 refers to the type of interactions in which these

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: CHAPTER 1 • ARGUMENT 1 refers to the claims that people make • ARGUMENT 2 refers to the type of interactions in which these claims are developed//types of interactions in which people engage o This term argument refers to an interaction characterized by disagreement o From this perspective an argument does not exist until some person perceives what is happening as an argument • Argument 1 vs 2 it is possible to make arugments (argument 1) without engaging in disputes or disagreements (arguments 2). I t however isn’t possible to have disputes (argument 2) without making knowledge claims (argument1). Disagreements are therefore expressed through argument1. o This distinction between 1 and 2 is important because it illustrates that argumentation is not merely a problem-solving capacity. • Appropriate contexts to argue • Wayne Brockreide proposes a metaphor about the images that arguers have of each other are particularly important in shaping the nature of argumentation o Some arguers are RAPISTS These arguers see who they are arguing as objects or as inferior human beings, and their intent is to manipulate or violate these objects. This view is consistent with the view that rape is a crime of power and violence Rapists seek to dominate their victims and to demonstrate their control over them They seek to gain or maintain a position of superiority over those whom they are arguing. They may focus on prevailing in the argument, on getting their desired outcome and on humiliating their opponent that they lose sight of all other objectives. o Some are SEDUCERS Seducers operate with charm or deceit The intent of seducers is to beguile other sand thereby have their way with them Seducers seek their own personal gratification without regard for the desires, feelings, wishes, needs or emotional consequences that the act of seduction might have for other people. Seductive arguers persue their personal objectives even if doing so harms others o Other type is LOVER Lovers differ from rapists and seducers because they see other peole as human and not as objects and because they want power parity rather than power advantage. Whereas rapists and seducers want immediate personal gratification lovers want to develop continuing bilateral relationships They have respect for who they argue and so lovers acknowledge that those persons have the intellect, ability and wisdom to decide for themselves what they wish to believe after being exposed to all of the competing arguments. As arguers lovers also have self respect. They are usually willing to put themselves on the line for the positions that thye believe in and they aruge with sense of genuineness and convction that demonstrates argumentative integrity. The arguers also come to understand that they could lose the argument and thus have to confront the fact that their beliefs and or long-standing opinions might be in error • ETHICAL ARGUERS...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/03/2011 for the course COMM 230 taught by Professor Underhill during the Spring '08 term at Maryland.

Page1 / 15

Midterm review - CHAPTER 1 • ARGUMENT 1 refers to the claims that people make • ARGUMENT 2 refers to the type of interactions in which these

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online