This chapter was all about how to successfully persuade and win an argument using different techniques. There are effective ways to state your claims and combine them using a warrant, this is used to persuade the audience a certain way. There are two different types of arguments discussed in the chapter, Rogerian and Orations. Rogerians are arguments that acknowledge other possible solutions to the problem they are discussing in the argument, understanding where they are coming from and not pointing fingers at the other claims. Orations on the other hand, did attack the opposing argument or topic. They were created with an introduction, background, lines of argument, alternative arguments and the conclusion. The whole point of this is to get the audience on their side instead of the opposing team.
This chapter also reflects on how using evidence is very important to proving the claim. I particularly like the part about rebuttal because it was a different approach from all of the other things discussed. The rebuttal is relating to the reaction or after effect of what happens with the argument. The person must also be prepared with what to say if the opponent comes back with something. They must know what to say, even when not knowing what they people may ask them. Their research and understanding on the topic is very important in this case.
If you look at any case trial, it is evident that these things exist. Lawyers are huge in using Rogerians and Orations. They use Rogerian when their client must negotiate with the judge or fellow lawyers in their sentence and try to make a simple, calm negotiation. Orations could possibly have something to do with the jury and attacking the opposing argument of the suspect being guilty. Also with the two lawyers they must battle back and forth and try to persuade the jury to take their side.
I think this is very interesting to read because it helped me understand the chapter a little more even after I read it myself. You correctly explain what type of arguments there are and how they are used. The Rogerian is primarily acknowledging there may be other solutions, but thinking your own opinion is the best. Orations attack the other opinion and also think theirs is the best, but disregard the other opinions. You also explain what a warrant is, which is significant to an argument because they help persuade the audience. In addition, you talk about how when making these claims, evidence is crucial in making it a believable or sway-able argument. Without evidence, it is just a statement that probably nobody will believe. You talk about rebuttals as well, which is what I did on my blog. I agree with you that they are important and interesting because the speaker has to already be prepared with possible comebacks. As well, you talked about how in trials they use certain arguments, such as Rogerian or Orations to prove their point.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of a Rogerian argument in a trial is in the book "The Crucible," which is primarily focused around the accusation of a girl being a witch. They use the Rogerian style to convince the jury that she is definitely a witch and that there are no but's about it. They attack the other side of the argument as a means of proving their point and swaying the audience to believe their side.
Yeah, I would also have to say you did explain this part of the chapter so much better than the book did because after reading it I was lost. So from what I read in the book and what you have posted, basically in a Rogerian argument you don't just disregard the other argument but you listen to the other possible solutions but at the same time your solution is always going to be the best. I thought the best part of your post is your analysis of the "rebuttal". The rebuttal is such an important part of keeping your argument alive after you have brought it to the table and stated your claims. If you have nothing to say in response of your opponent then the audience is going to either think that you did not do your research or could not top the opposing statement. Evidence for your claim is king in this type of argument especially when your writing it down. I think we see a decent amount of both the Rogerian and Oration arguments in life daily. Just as your example of lawyers where they use the rogerian path when trying to get their defendant on some sort of good terms, but when the defense comes back at them, they turn it around into a oration and attack them in order to defend their claim.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite examples of an oration was when I used to go to class back in high school and when the teacher would try to convince us her way was the right way and that was the only way it was going to be and I would disagree and she would become angered and immediately transition into why her way was the best.
I believe the key to a successful argument is how well you are able to word the argument you are trying to present. Wording is tricky. People react differently with synonyms of certain words. Take the word narcotics. If someone tells a crowd they have experimented with narcotics, the audience is going to react somewhat negatively (whether highly or insignificantly). But the degree of negativity is not as severe as if that person were to have used a different word or phrase in place of the word narcotics. Now, if this person had said they had experimented with meth or cocaine in front of the same crowd, the degree of negativity received would have increased. People associate the words meth and cocaine with negative content, in turn causing bad feedback from the audience he or she was addressing. It goes to show why people of high social standing choose to use particular phrases of words to convey to their audience that they did something publicly wrong. Words create argument s to try to appeal to certain audiences in a way to prevent their image from being tarnished too greatly. In your piece you mention that “Lawyers are huge in using Rogerians and Orations. They use Rogerian when their client must negotiate with the judge or fellow lawyers in their sentence and try to make a simple, calm negotiation.” I think this applies with our next writing project. Lawyers use vocabulary that appeals to the jury to persuade them to believe their cause. Persuasion is a type of argument.
ReplyDelete