of argument speech

Argumentative Speeches

Argumentative speech generator.

“Everyone who posts their own opinion is like an expert already.” Take for the example the most recent Philippine national elections. It consisted of five different parties who had their own agenda and own candidate running for president. Months before the elections took place, people have taken up to social media to voice out their opinions on which candidate is the most preferable candidate that would bring the needed change that the Philippines would like to see. Eventually, Rodrigo Duterte won the majority of the vote and remains as the nation’s president until today. You may also see argumentative writings .

• Debate speech examples
• Expository speech examples

Just like persuasive speaking , the goal of argumentative speeches is not giving an audience a wake-up call, but this type persuasive speech attempts to persuade the audience to alter their viewpoints on a controversial issue. Argumentative speeches aim to radically the opinions already held by the audience. This type of speech is extremely challenging; therefore, the speaker should be careful to choose a topic which he or she feels prepared to reinforce with a strong argument.

What is Argumentative Speeches?

Argumentative Speech Bundle Download

Argumentative Speech Format

1. introduction.

Hook : Capture the audience’s attention. Thesis Statement : Clearly state your main argument. Preview : Briefly outline the main points.

Point 1 : Present your first major point with supporting evidence.   Point 2 : Present your second major point with supporting evidence.   Point 3 : Present your third major point with supporting evidence.   Counterarguments : Address and refute opposing viewpoints.

3. Conclusion

Summary : Summarize the main points.   Restate Thesis : Reinforce your thesis in light of the evidence.   Call to Action : Encourage the audience to take a specific action or adopt your viewpoint.

Argumentative Speech Example

Introduction Good morning everyone! Imagine a world where everyone has access to clean water. Unfortunately, this is not the reality for millions of people today. Access to clean water should be a fundamental human right. Today, I will discuss the health, educational, and economic impacts of clean water and why it is essential for everyone.   Body Point 1: Health Clean water is essential for health and survival. Contaminated water leads to numerous diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and typhoid. According to the World Health Organization, over 2 billion people drink water contaminated with feces, leading to millions of deaths each year. Ensuring access to clean water can drastically reduce these health risks and save lives.   Point 2: Education Access to clean water can improve educational outcomes. When children have clean water, they are healthier and more likely to attend school regularly. UNICEF reports that children lose 443 million school days each year due to water-related illnesses. By providing clean water, we can help students stay healthy and focused on their education.   Point 3: Economy Economically, clean water access boosts productivity and reduces healthcare costs. In areas with clean water, people spend less time sick or fetching water and more time working and contributing to the economy. The World Bank estimates that every dollar invested in clean water and sanitation returns four dollars in economic benefits.   Counterarguments Some argue that providing clean water universally is too expensive. However, investing in clean water infrastructure saves money in the long run by reducing healthcare costs and improving productivity. Moreover, the moral and ethical obligation to ensure everyone has access to clean water outweighs the financial cost.   Conclusion In conclusion, clean water is essential for health, education, and economic productivity. It is a fundamental human right that we must prioritize. By ensuring access to clean water, we can save lives, improve education, and boost economies. Let’s take action today to make clean water accessible to everyone. Thank you for listening.  

Short Argumentative Speech Example

Introduction Good morning everyone! Imagine a world where everyone has access to clean water. Sadly, this is not the reality for millions of people. Access to clean water should be a fundamental human right. Today, I will discuss why clean water is crucial for health, education, and the economy.   Body Health Clean water is vital for health. Contaminated water causes diseases like cholera and typhoid. The World Health Organization reports that over 2 billion people drink unsafe water, leading to millions of deaths each year. Ensuring clean water access can save countless lives.   Education Clean water improves education. Healthy children attend school more regularly. UNICEF states that children lose 443 million school days annually due to water-related illnesses. Providing clean water keeps students in school and enhances their learning.   Economy Clean water boosts the economy. It reduces healthcare costs and increases productivity. The World Bank estimates that every dollar invested in clean water returns four dollars in economic benefits. Investing in clean water infrastructure is both ethical and economically sound.   Counterargument Some argue that universal clean water access is too expensive. However, the long-term savings in healthcare and the boost in productivity far outweigh the initial costs. We have a moral duty to ensure everyone has clean water.   Conclusion In conclusion, clean water is essential for health, education, and the economy. It is a basic human right that we must prioritize. Let’s take action today to ensure everyone has access to clean water. Thank you for listening.  

• Argumentative Speech for Students

• Argumentative Speech for High School

• Argumentative Speech on Social Media

More Argumentative Speech Topics

• Argumentative Speech about Education
• Argumentative Speech about Bullying
• Argumentative Speech on Social Issues

How to Write Argumentative Speech

Hook : Start with a statement or question that grabs attention.

Thesis Statement : Clearly state your position on the issue.

Preview : Briefly outline the main points you will discuss.

Point 1 : Present your first major point with supporting evidence.

Point 2 : Present your second major point with supporting evidence.

Point 3 : Present your third major point with supporting evidence.

Counterarguments : Address and refute opposing viewpoints.

Summary : Recap the main points of your argument.

Restate Thesis : Reinforce your thesis statement.

Call to Action : Encourage the audience to take action or adopt your viewpoint.

Uses of Argumentative Speech

• Debates : In formal debates, participants use argumentative speeches to present their stance on a given topic. They aim to convince judges and the audience by presenting well-structured arguments, backed by evidence and logical reasoning, while refuting the opposing side’s points.
• Political Campaigns : Politicians use argumentative speeches to persuade voters to support their policies and candidacy. By addressing key issues, presenting solutions, and countering opponents’ arguments, they aim to garner public support and win elections.
• Legal Proceedings : Lawyers use argumentative speeches in courtrooms to advocate for their clients. They present evidence, construct logical arguments, and address counterarguments to persuade the judge or jury to rule in their favor.
• Public Policy Advocacy : Activists and advocates use argumentative speeches to promote policy changes. They present data, personal stories, and logical arguments to persuade lawmakers and the public to support their cause.
• Academic Settings : Students use argumentative speeches in classroom debates and presentations to develop critical thinking and persuasive skills. These speeches help them learn to construct logical arguments and defend their viewpoints effectively.
• Business Presentations : In the business world, professionals use argumentative speeches to persuade stakeholders, investors, or clients to support projects, investments, or business strategies. By presenting clear arguments and evidence, they aim to influence decision-making.
• Social and Community Issues : Community leaders and activists use argumentative speeches to address social issues and mobilize support for community initiatives. They aim to raise awareness, change public opinion, and encourage collective action.
• Environmental Advocacy : Environmentalists use argumentative speeches to promote sustainability and conservation efforts. They present scientific data and logical arguments to persuade the public and policymakers to take action on environmental issues.
• Educational Outreach : Educators and speakers use argumentative speeches to inform and persuade audiences about important topics, such as health, safety, and social justice. These speeches aim to educate and inspire change.
• Media and Journalism : Journalists and media personalities use argumentative speeches in opinion pieces and editorials to influence public opinion. They present well-reasoned arguments on current events and issues to persuade their audience.

Making Claims in Argumentative Speaking

In developing a good argumentative speech, it is crucial to have solid claims and basis for your arguments. Taken from  Speech Communication,  Raymond S. Ross clarifies the following definitions present in an argumentative speech:

Claim:   The whole reason for your arguing in the first place. This is based on your opinion.

Grounds:   This is purely based on research. Facts, tables, statistical data, proof of evidence. If you have no grounds to support your claims whatsoever, you will be seen as an ignorant blabbermouth just stating random things without proof. You may also see  speech examples .

Argumentative speeches can be based on the following: a claim of fact, a claim of value, or a claim of policy.

A claim of fact   starts with an incident or a reality that is based on evidence.

A claim of value   is a belief that something is good or bad, right or wrong.

A claim of policy   is a claim that recommends the course of action.

Argumentation requires a firm stand on the positive or a negative side of the said issue. After all, the goal is not to win over your audience, but to dominate the argument as it requires the speakers to not only present their side of the issue, but to also present it with substantial evidence in making the said claim. Argumentative speaking can be carried out in debates. You may also see  motivational speech .

As you organize your said speech, you should have your strongest arguments at the first and the last sentence of your speech. First impressions among the audience are just as important as your closing statement directed to them. It is also important to avoid personal attacks. If you believe in “karma”, that’s exactly what’s going to happen to you once you engage in a fight with someone. After all, what goes around comes around. You may also see  appreciation speech .

Once you start with derogatory remarks and baseless accusations will eventually discredit you as a speaker and you will lose the trust of your audience. Get straight to the point and make use of practicalities in your speech. Don’t beat around the bush too much otherwise, you will lose the interest and the impact you might have with the crowd. You may also see  welcome speech .

Essential Components of an Argumentative Speech:

With the dominating over the argument as the main goal of an argumentative speech in the first place, it is important to understand the components that encompass the said speech in the first place. Listed below are four essential parts of an argumentative speech:

1. Find for a debatable topic

Although it can really be just any topic, make sure that it clearly has both the affirmative and negative side to remain impartial and unbiased to just a single viewpoint. For example, do pineapples really go on pizza?

2. Pick a side

If you have the option to pick a side, that is great as you have picked with a side that is most suited to your beliefs and perceptions about that certain issue. But if not, you will just have to stick with what is given to you and make the most of it. Once you stick with that certain side, make sure to provide all related information surrounding that issue, otherwise, it would confuse the audience on what side you truly belong to. You may also see  appreciation speech .

3. Give some supportable arguments

Research, research, research! And afterwards, conduct more research and verify the gathered data. It cannot be simply your opinions alone, you have to try to include the opinions of other people as well, what other people have to say about it, by providing figures and data that is relevant. Nobody likes an unsupported argument with baseless hearsay. You may also  welcome speech .

4. Refute alternate positions

When an argument is being thrown at you, you learn to throw one back. Are you just going to let the opposing party trample over your side of the argument like a powerless ant? Or, are you going to put up a fight by throwing in arguments of your own? In doing so, you have to provide supporting facts that support your argument. You may also see  leadership speech .

Tips for delivering an argumentative speech:

• Search for a concrete and controversial argument to use as your base.
• Arrange your points properly from the first to the last. If it’s in a debate setting, you normally would be assigned to teams of four (first speaker to third speaker, and the person who summarizes everything). Try to coordinate with your members on what points each person would like to throw to the opposition.
• Sacrifice most of your time and effort for research. All that preparation will have been for nothing, if it is baseless.

Why is an argumentative speech important?

It develops critical thinking, persuasive skills, and the ability to present and defend a viewpoint logically.

How do you choose a topic for an argumentative speech?

Choose a topic that is controversial, interesting, and has sufficient evidence available to support your argument.

What are the key components of an argumentative speech?

An argumentative speech includes an introduction, clear thesis, body with supporting evidence, counterarguments, and a conclusion.

How do you structure an argumentative speech?

Begin with an introduction, state your thesis, provide evidence and reasoning in the body, address counterarguments, and conclude effectively.

What makes a strong thesis statement in an argumentative speech?

A strong thesis is clear, specific, and presents a debatable stance that guides the direction of your speech.

How do you gather evidence for an argumentative speech?

Use reliable sources such as academic articles, books, reputable websites, and expert opinions to gather evidence.

Why is addressing counterarguments important?

Addressing counterarguments strengthens your position by demonstrating awareness and refuting opposing viewpoints.

How do you refute counterarguments in an argumentative speech?

Refute counterarguments by presenting evidence and logical reasoning that disproves or diminishes the opposing viewpoints.

What role does the introduction play in an argumentative speech?

The introduction grabs attention, introduces the topic, and states the thesis clearly.

How do you conclude an argumentative speech?

Summarize key points, restate the thesis in light of the evidence presented, and end with a strong closing statement.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Write an Argumentative Speech on the necessity of renewable energy.

Create an Argumentative Speech advocating for universal healthcare.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to write an argumentative essay | Examples & tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips

Published on July 24, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An argumentative essay expresses an extended argument for a particular thesis statement . The author takes a clearly defined stance on their subject and builds up an evidence-based case for it.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

When do you write an argumentative essay, approaches to argumentative essays, introducing your argument, the body: developing your argument, concluding your argument, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about argumentative essays.

You might be assigned an argumentative essay as a writing exercise in high school or in a composition class. The prompt will often ask you to argue for one of two positions, and may include terms like “argue” or “argument.” It will frequently take the form of a question.

The prompt may also be more open-ended in terms of the possible arguments you could make.

Argumentative writing at college level

At university, the vast majority of essays or papers you write will involve some form of argumentation. For example, both rhetorical analysis and literary analysis essays involve making arguments about texts.

In this context, you won’t necessarily be told to write an argumentative essay—but making an evidence-based argument is an essential goal of most academic writing, and this should be your default approach unless you’re told otherwise.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts

At a university level, all the prompts below imply an argumentative essay as the appropriate response.

Your research should lead you to develop a specific position on the topic. The essay then argues for that position and aims to convince the reader by presenting your evidence, evaluation and analysis.

• Don’t just list all the effects you can think of.
• Do develop a focused argument about the overall effect and why it matters, backed up by evidence from sources.
• Don’t just provide a selection of data on the measures’ effectiveness.
• Do build up your own argument about which kinds of measures have been most or least effective, and why.
• Don’t just analyze a random selection of doppelgänger characters.
• Do form an argument about specific texts, comparing and contrasting how they express their thematic concerns through doppelgänger characters.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

An argumentative essay should be objective in its approach; your arguments should rely on logic and evidence, not on exaggeration or appeals to emotion.

There are many possible approaches to argumentative essays, but there are two common models that can help you start outlining your arguments: The Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

Toulmin arguments

The Toulmin model consists of four steps, which may be repeated as many times as necessary for the argument:

• Make a claim
• Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim
• Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim)
• Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives

The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays. You don’t have to use these specific terms (grounds, warrants, rebuttals), but establishing a clear connection between your claims and the evidence supporting them is crucial in an argumentative essay.

Say you’re making an argument about the effectiveness of workplace anti-discrimination measures. You might:

• Claim that unconscious bias training does not have the desired results, and resources would be better spent on other approaches
• Cite data to support your claim
• Explain how the data indicates that the method is ineffective
• Anticipate objections to your claim based on other data, indicating whether these objections are valid, and if not, why not.

Rogerian arguments

The Rogerian model also consists of four steps you might repeat throughout your essay:

• Discuss what the opposing position gets right and why people might hold this position
• Highlight the problems with this position
• Present your own position , showing how it addresses these problems
• Suggest a possible compromise —what elements of your position would proponents of the opposing position benefit from adopting?

This model builds up a clear picture of both sides of an argument and seeks a compromise. It is particularly useful when people tend to disagree strongly on the issue discussed, allowing you to approach opposing arguments in good faith.

Say you want to argue that the internet has had a positive impact on education. You might:

• Acknowledge that students rely too much on websites like Wikipedia
• Argue that teachers view Wikipedia as more unreliable than it really is
• Suggest that Wikipedia’s system of citations can actually teach students about referencing
• Suggest critical engagement with Wikipedia as a possible assignment for teachers who are skeptical of its usefulness.

You don’t necessarily have to pick one of these models—you may even use elements of both in different parts of your essay—but it’s worth considering them if you struggle to structure your arguments.

Regardless of which approach you take, your essay should always be structured using an introduction , a body , and a conclusion .

Like other academic essays, an argumentative essay begins with an introduction . The introduction serves to capture the reader’s interest, provide background information, present your thesis statement , and (in longer essays) to summarize the structure of the body.

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how a typical introduction works.

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts is on the rise, and its role in learning is hotly debated. For many teachers who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its critical benefits for students and educators—as a uniquely comprehensive and accessible information source; a means of exposure to and engagement with different perspectives; and a highly flexible learning environment.

The body of an argumentative essay is where you develop your arguments in detail. Here you’ll present evidence, analysis, and reasoning to convince the reader that your thesis statement is true.

In the standard five-paragraph format for short essays, the body takes up three of your five paragraphs. In longer essays, it will be more paragraphs, and might be divided into sections with headings.

Each paragraph covers its own topic, introduced with a topic sentence . Each of these topics must contribute to your overall argument; don’t include irrelevant information.

This example paragraph takes a Rogerian approach: It first acknowledges the merits of the opposing position and then highlights problems with that position.

Hover over different parts of the example to see how a body paragraph is constructed.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

An argumentative essay ends with a conclusion that summarizes and reflects on the arguments made in the body.

No new arguments or evidence appear here, but in longer essays you may discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your argument and suggest topics for future research. In all conclusions, you should stress the relevance and importance of your argument.

Hover over the following example to see the typical elements of a conclusion.

The internet has had a major positive impact on the world of education; occasional pitfalls aside, its value is evident in numerous applications. The future of teaching lies in the possibilities the internet opens up for communication, research, and interactivity. As the popularity of distance learning shows, students value the flexibility and accessibility offered by digital education, and educators should fully embrace these advantages. The internet’s dangers, real and imaginary, have been documented exhaustively by skeptics, but the internet is here to stay; it is time to focus seriously on its potential for good.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

The majority of the essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Unless otherwise specified, you can assume that the goal of any essay you’re asked to write is argumentative: To convince the reader of your position using evidence and reasoning.

In composition classes you might be given assignments that specifically test your ability to write an argumentative essay. Look out for prompts including instructions like “argue,” “assess,” or “discuss” to see if this is the goal.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved August 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/argumentative-essay/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, how to write an expository essay, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

3 Strong Argumentative Essay Examples, Analyzed

General Education

Need to defend your opinion on an issue? Argumentative essays are one of the most popular types of essays you’ll write in school. They combine persuasive arguments with fact-based research, and, when done well, can be powerful tools for making someone agree with your point of view. If you’re struggling to write an argumentative essay or just want to learn more about them, seeing examples can be a big help.

After giving an overview of this type of essay, we provide three argumentative essay examples. After each essay, we explain in-depth how the essay was structured, what worked, and where the essay could be improved. We end with tips for making your own argumentative essay as strong as possible.

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an essay that uses evidence and facts to support the claim it’s making. Its purpose is to persuade the reader to agree with the argument being made.

A good argumentative essay will use facts and evidence to support the argument, rather than just the author’s thoughts and opinions. For example, say you wanted to write an argumentative essay stating that Charleston, SC is a great destination for families. You couldn’t just say that it’s a great place because you took your family there and enjoyed it. For it to be an argumentative essay, you need to have facts and data to support your argument, such as the number of child-friendly attractions in Charleston, special deals you can get with kids, and surveys of people who visited Charleston as a family and enjoyed it. The first argument is based entirely on feelings, whereas the second is based on evidence that can be proven.

The standard five paragraph format is common, but not required, for argumentative essays. These essays typically follow one of two formats: the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model.

• The Toulmin model is the most common. It begins with an introduction, follows with a thesis/claim, and gives data and evidence to support that claim. This style of essay also includes rebuttals of counterarguments.
• The Rogerian model analyzes two sides of an argument and reaches a conclusion after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

3 Good Argumentative Essay Examples + Analysis

Below are three examples of argumentative essays, written by yours truly in my school days, as well as analysis of what each did well and where it could be improved.

Argumentative Essay Example 1

Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money because libraries are expensive to maintain. They also believe it will encourage more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book; they can simply click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they are. They could also access more materials because libraries won’t have to buy physical copies of books; they can simply rent out as many digital copies as they need.

However, it would be a serious mistake to replace libraries with tablets. First, digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more problems than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found that people read 20-30% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to cause numerous health problems, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes, headaches, and eye strain, at much higher instances than reading print does. People who use tablets and mobile devices excessively also have a higher incidence of more serious health issues such as fibromyalgia, shoulder and back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read from my e-reader for too long, my eyes begin to feel tired and my neck hurts. We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially young people, more reasons to look at screens.

Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries offer is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include acting as a quiet study space, giving people a way to converse with their neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering patron questions, and keeping the community connected. One neighborhood found that, after a local library instituted community events such as play times for toddlers and parents, job fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their community. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 found that nearly two-thirds of American adults feel that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community. People see libraries as a way to connect with others and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly as well or as easily.

While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite the myriad issues surrounding them. It would also end access to many of the benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries are such an important part of the community network that they could never be replaced by a simple object.

The author begins by giving an overview of the counter-argument, then the thesis appears as the first sentence in the third paragraph. The essay then spends the rest of the paper dismantling the counter argument and showing why readers should believe the other side.

What this essay does well:

• Although it’s a bit unusual to have the thesis appear fairly far into the essay, it works because, once the thesis is stated, the rest of the essay focuses on supporting it since the counter-argument has already been discussed earlier in the paper.
• This essay includes numerous facts and cites studies to support its case. By having specific data to rely on, the author’s argument is stronger and readers will be more inclined to agree with it.
• For every argument the other side makes, the author makes sure to refute it and follow up with why her opinion is the stronger one. In order to make a strong argument, it’s important to dismantle the other side, which this essay does this by making the author's view appear stronger.
• This is a shorter paper, and if it needed to be expanded to meet length requirements, it could include more examples and go more into depth with them, such as by explaining specific cases where people benefited from local libraries.
• Additionally, while the paper uses lots of data, the author also mentions their own experience with using tablets. This should be removed since argumentative essays focus on facts and data to support an argument, not the author’s own opinion or experiences. Replacing that with more data on health issues associated with screen time would strengthen the essay.
• Some of the points made aren't completely accurate , particularly the one about digital books being cheaper. It actually often costs a library more money to rent out numerous digital copies of a book compared to buying a single physical copy. Make sure in your own essay you thoroughly research each of the points and rebuttals you make, otherwise you'll look like you don't know the issue that well.

Argumentative Essay Example 2

There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them and not enough on prevention haven’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major program to combat malaria was WHO’s Global Malaria Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, it had a goal of eliminating malaria in Africa within the next ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT. More than one billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. However, the program suffered from many problems and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria as well as the number of malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program was active.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the project was that it set uniform strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments, geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as it could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the way it was meant to. Most African countries don't have the resources to send all their people to doctors and get shots, nor can they afford to clear wetlands or other malaria prone areas. The continent’s spending per person for eradicating malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa simply can’t rely on a plan that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they have to spare.

Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over 95% of mosquitoes resistant to it. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need to be used to prevent and treat malaria, which further drives up the cost of malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.

Instead of developing plans to treat malaria after the infection has incurred, programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Not only is this plan cheaper and more effective, reducing the number of people who contract malaria also reduces loss of work/school days which can further bring down the productivity of the region.

One of the cheapest and most effective ways of preventing malaria is to implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs).  These nets provide a protective barrier around the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they stop mosquitoes from biting people through the nets, and they help reduce mosquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t even own bed nets.  Bed nets are also very effective because most mosquito bites occur while the person is sleeping, so bed nets would be able to drastically reduce the number of transmissions during the night. In fact, transmission of malaria can be reduced by as much as 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread. Because money is so scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a great benefit and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly 2 USD to make, last several years, and can protect two adults. Studies have shown that, for every 100-1000 more nets are being used, one less child dies of malaria. With an estimated 300 million people in Africa not being protected by mosquito nets, there’s the potential to save three million lives by spending just a few dollars per person.

Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like education levels and the economy. Vector control is more effective than treatment strategies because it means fewer people are getting sick. When fewer people get sick, the working population is stronger as a whole because people are not put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically only harvest 40% of the crops that healthy families can harvest. Additionally, a family with members who have malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’s estimated that malaria costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every year. A strong working population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in desperate need of.  

This essay begins with an introduction, which ends with the thesis (that malaria eradication plans in Sub-Saharan Africa should focus on prevention rather than treatment). The first part of the essay lays out why the counter argument (treatment rather than prevention) is not as effective, and the second part of the essay focuses on why prevention of malaria is the better path to take.

• The thesis appears early, is stated clearly, and is supported throughout the rest of the essay. This makes the argument clear for readers to understand and follow throughout the essay.
• There’s lots of solid research in this essay, including specific programs that were conducted and how successful they were, as well as specific data mentioned throughout. This evidence helps strengthen the author’s argument.
• The author makes a case for using expanding bed net use over waiting until malaria occurs and beginning treatment, but not much of a plan is given for how the bed nets would be distributed or how to ensure they’re being used properly. By going more into detail of what she believes should be done, the author would be making a stronger argument.
• The introduction of the essay does a good job of laying out the seriousness of the problem, but the conclusion is short and abrupt. Expanding it into its own paragraph would give the author a final way to convince readers of her side of the argument.

Argumentative Essay Example 3

There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.

Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very high) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but college athletes don’t receive any of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college athletes should be paid state that paying college athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the university for a certain number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.  

Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued that, even if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have stayed at Duke longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in college would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer before turning pro.

Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to join.

People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that certain teammates are making more money than they are.

They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes comes from men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would make a small group of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin making millions immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.

Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving enough benefits already. The top athletes already receive scholarships that are worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks, have access to top medical care if they are injured, receive top coaching, get travel perks and free gear, and can use their time in college as a way to capture the attention of professional recruiters. No other college students receive anywhere near as much from their schools.

People on this side also point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive amount of money each year, it is still a non-profit organization. How? Because over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that revenue would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.

While both sides have good points, it’s clear that the negatives of paying college athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by the scholarships and perks they receive. Adding a salary to that would result in a college athletic system where only a small handful of athletes (those likely to become millionaires in the professional leagues) are paid by a handful of schools who enter bidding wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money. Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it possible for as many people to benefit from and enjoy college sports as possible.

This argumentative essay follows the Rogerian model. It discusses each side, first laying out multiple reasons people believe student athletes should be paid, then discussing reasons why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. It ends by stating that college athletes shouldn’t be paid by arguing that paying them would destroy college athletics programs and cause them to have many of the issues professional sports leagues have.

• Both sides of the argument are well developed, with multiple reasons why people agree with each side. It allows readers to get a full view of the argument and its nuances.
• Certain statements on both sides are directly rebuffed in order to show where the strengths and weaknesses of each side lie and give a more complete and sophisticated look at the argument.
• Using the Rogerian model can be tricky because oftentimes you don’t explicitly state your argument until the end of the paper. Here, the thesis doesn’t appear until the first sentence of the final paragraph. That doesn’t give readers a lot of time to be convinced that your argument is the right one, compared to a paper where the thesis is stated in the beginning and then supported throughout the paper. This paper could be strengthened if the final paragraph was expanded to more fully explain why the author supports the view, or if the paper had made it clearer that paying athletes was the weaker argument throughout.

3 Tips for Writing a Good Argumentative Essay

Now that you’ve seen examples of what good argumentative essay samples look like, follow these three tips when crafting your own essay.

#1: Make Your Thesis Crystal Clear

The thesis is the key to your argumentative essay; if it isn’t clear or readers can’t find it easily, your entire essay will be weak as a result. Always make sure that your thesis statement is easy to find. The typical spot for it is the final sentence of the introduction paragraph, but if it doesn’t fit in that spot for your essay, try to at least put it as the first or last sentence of a different paragraph so it stands out more.

Also make sure that your thesis makes clear what side of the argument you’re on. After you’ve written it, it’s a great idea to show your thesis to a couple different people--classmates are great for this. Just by reading your thesis they should be able to understand what point you’ll be trying to make with the rest of your essay.

#2: Show Why the Other Side Is Weak

When writing your essay, you may be tempted to ignore the other side of the argument and just focus on your side, but don’t do this. The best argumentative essays really tear apart the other side to show why readers shouldn’t believe it. Before you begin writing your essay, research what the other side believes, and what their strongest points are. Then, in your essay, be sure to mention each of these and use evidence to explain why they’re incorrect/weak arguments. That’ll make your essay much more effective than if you only focused on your side of the argument.

#3: Use Evidence to Support Your Side

Remember, an essay can’t be an argumentative essay if it doesn’t support its argument with evidence. For every point you make, make sure you have facts to back it up. Some examples are previous studies done on the topic, surveys of large groups of people, data points, etc. There should be lots of numbers in your argumentative essay that support your side of the argument. This will make your essay much stronger compared to only relying on your own opinions to support your argument.

Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample

Argumentative essays are persuasive essays that use facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. Most argumentative essays follow either the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model. By reading good argumentative essay examples, you can learn how to develop your essay and provide enough support to make readers agree with your opinion. When writing your essay, remember to always make your thesis clear, show where the other side is weak, and back up your opinion with data and evidence.

What's Next?

Do you need to write an argumentative essay as well? Check out our guide on the best argumentative essay topics for ideas!

You'll probably also need to write research papers for school. We've got you covered with 113 potential topics for research papers.

Your college admissions essay may end up being one of the most important essays you write. Follow our step-by-step guide on writing a personal statement to have an essay that'll impress colleges.

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

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

Arguments and Information

Learning Objectives

• Define and explore brainstorming for argument selection
• Write a specific purpose statement
• Write effective thesis statements

When you’re preparing to speak, finding an argument, perspective, or topic can feel overwhelming. “Where should I start?” “What do I care about?” “Why should the audience care?” are all questions that you’ll likely encounter.

These are important queries, and we don’t want to downplay the difficulty in selecting an argument and formulating an idea that is worthwhile to the audience. Finding an argument that fits the context, is timely, well-reasoned, and interesting can be difficult. Oftentimes, when we sit down to think about ideas, brainstorm, and jot down some insights, our page feels oddly blank. “What should we talk about?” “Where do we start?” are common questions that race through our minds. You might experience this, too, and feel confused about how to begin selecting an argument or sorting through information to locate an interesting idea.

When you begin searching for an argument, you aren’t alone; you have tons of informational avenues that can direct you to different topics that are relevant in the world.

In fact, you’re experiencing interesting information all the time! You are constantly absorbing, sorting, and curating information and ideas. Think about your social media accounts. If you’re like us, you likely scroll through and click on articles that seem unique or insightful; you “like” or comment in response to posts that draw you in. There’s a constant flow of information (and potential speech topics).

In this chapter, we explore how to select and formulate the main argument for a speech. It’s often uncommon to snap our fingers and know exactly what our argument will be, and that’s OK! This chapter works to funnel you through brainstorming and searching toward writing a clear and narrow argument that is specific to your public speaking context. It’s our goal to encourage curiosity, and we hope that you’ll accept the challenge.

By the end of this chapter, you will have deeper critical thinking skills that lead you from broad topic ideas to specific arguments and thesis statements. Before brainstorming a topic can begin, however, you must zero in on the context.

Context is Key

Your context should always guide your preparatory process, including selecting an argument to present. The context defines why you’re there, how long you’re there for, when, and with whom.

By answering the “why” – i.e. “Why am I here?” – you can determine your general purpose for speaking: informing, persuading, or entertaining. While arguments can often be adapted to fit many purposes, it’s always important to begin any project by knowing the parameters and overarching goals – in this case, why am I speaking? For example, are you trying to:

• Solve a problem
• Reduce uncertainty
• Increase awareness
• Honor someone

Selecting a final topic before considering the context means “placing the cart before the horse,” so to speak. Your context will inform the general purpose which will guide your specific argument.

It’s important, too, to stay appraised of the other contextual factors, particularly the time. How much time you have to speak will influence how broad or narrow your argument can be. If you have 3 minutes, for example, you must have a specific and focused take-away for the audience within that short amount of time. Alternatively, a 20-minute speech provides more flexibility. There may be some ideas or arguments that aren’t feasible within certain time constraints.

As you’ll remember from Chapter 1, “context” also refers to the broader historical and cultural context. Being aware of larger cultural conversations and dialogues can assist in selecting arguments that are timely and relevant for your audience. In other words, it allows you to find information that is having an impact on your community/communities right now, and that information becomes significant to share.

If you aren’t sure how to locate such arguments, stay tuned! Below, we tackle brainstorming as a mechanism to locate potential arguments.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is the process and practice of searching to find ideas or information. When you brainstorm, you are generating ideas to overcome a barrier or confront a problem. The problem you’re confronting is,

“What can I talk about that will sustain the audience’s attention and have an impact?” For speeches, brainstorming assists in locating and narrowing information to an accurate idea that supports the development of a well-reasoned argument.

Like we mentioned in the introduction, you are already sorting through vast amounts of information daily. We are confronted with so many ideas, research findings, memes, tweets, advertisements, and podcasts (to name a few); we develop personal strategies to find information that is meaningful and worthwhile to us.

Brainstorming is a practice that formalizes that sorting process. It asks you to make those choices more deliberately and consciously. The key to successful brainstorming is openness – you must be open to finding, locating, and narrowing down information.

Arguments are Advocacies

Topic selection and argument construction are key parts of formulating an advocacy. Speeches are meaningful and impactful communication acts. When you speak, you are supporting an idea, cause, or policy. You should approach brainstorming purposefully and intentionally with a framework in mind that “What I select matters.” Because what you select matters.

In addition, your advocacy may begin broadly, but your goal is to tailor that advocacy down to a workable argument. It’s helpful to think about your topics as orbiting an advocacy. For example, you may be interested in environmental advocacy, where environmentalism is a large and broad topic. But “environmentalism” isn’t a workable speech argument – it’s way too big! With research, critical thinking, and expertise, you’ll narrow that broad advocacy umbrella down to a workable argument – a thesis statement – and craft the remainder of your speech with that specific argument in mind.

We suggest two broad brainstorming strategies, and let’s start with the first: exploratory research.

Exploratory Research

Exploratory research encompasses brainstorming strategies that spark curiosity. When you explore, you are going on an adventure, and exploratory research is similar. You are sorting information to find broad topics or ideas (that you’ll narrow down later). Conducting a personal inventory and exploring online are two great exploratory brainstorming strategies.

Personal Inventory

An old adage states, “Write about what you know.”

To write what you know, begin by conducting a personal inventory – a process of tracking ideas, insights, or topics that you have experience with or interest in . Retail stores do regular inventories to know what is actually stocked in the business. You have much more going on in your brain and background than you can be conscious of at any one time. Being asked the right kinds of prompts can help you find ideas. Look over Table 3.1 for some prompting questions when conducting a persona inventory.

This may not be an inventory that you complete in one sitting. In fact, it’s worthwhile to jot down a few things that catch your attention throughout the day or for a series of days. Once complete, the inventory may seem long and intrusive, but digging a little deeper may help you find ideas and directions that are unique to you. Generating your list based on these questions and prompts will get you excited about your topic and talking about it to your audience.

Let’s work through a hypothetical application of the personal inventory. Imagine brainstorming for a speech, and you write the following in response to Table 3.1:

Major: Economics (for now) Goals : Complete my degree with honors; travel to Brazil Barriers to achieving those goals : Procrastination, assigned class schedules, expensive college and fees, problems with gaining a visa

As you look over these broad ideas, your next step is to highlight topics that pique your interest or are a priority. You might highlight “expensive college” as a barrier that could prohibit you from completing your economics degree on time. After all, if you are unable to afford college (or are worried about loans), you may take a semester break or drop out. Also, as an economics major, you become more interested in exploring college affordability.

As the personal inventory implies, good speech topic ideas often begin with the speaker. After all, if a speaker is intrigued by an idea, that passion is more likely to translate to an audience. But it doesn’t end there. Remember, we are just brainstorming! It’s still necessary to research and read about a topic or problem from multiple viewpoints and sources. If we only begin from ourselves, we often fail to see or learn about different perspectives, other important areas, or problems. Exploring online can help in narrowing your topic and deciding if it’s a relevant argument for your audience and community.

Explore Online

A second brainstorming technique is online exploration—searching digital information with an open mind. You can use your personal inventory as guidance or, if you’re stuck, you can read information online for ideas that spark curiosity. There are ample online locations to find an array of information, from Google News to Twitter.

When you search, look far and wide. It’s common to search and seek out information that we’re looking for, but brainstorming isn’t about finding what you already know; It’s about finding what you don’t. Use different search engines and social media platforms for help.

As you search, skim. Remember that this is an exploratory phase (we’ll talk more about searching in-depth in Chapter 4), so you don’t need to read every article that pops up on a search engine. Write down words. Write down phrases. Ask yourself questions about those words and phrases to determine how relevant and interesting they could be.

For example, if you continued brainstorming about “expensive college” – an idea on your hypothetical personal inventory—you might find a series of posts, articles, and insights that a) help you learn more and b) help narrow down the topic. You’d learn that, under the broad category of college affordability, there are a range of topics that influence students, including: student loan interest rates, textbook cost, private loans, and the depletion of Pell grants. You could attack any of these issues, of course, but some are more complicated than others. Textbooks seem like they could be a potential topic. Perhaps you recently experienced purchasing expensive college textbooks. Perhaps you loaned a friend money after their textbook bill made it difficult to pay rent. After reflecting, books seem ripe for advocacy.

Whenever you are exploring a topic online, it is important to remember that if you have one good source, you probably have several. The trick is being able to use that one good article to track down multiple sources. For example, a Vox article about textbooks, titled “The High Cost of College Textbooks, Explained,” provides opportunities for more online exploration. Below is a list of ideas or concepts to click on or research in other tabs. Look for these in every article as you brainstorm. Pretty soon, you will probably have a dozen or more tabs open, meaning you will have much more expertise and a deeper understanding of your topic.

• Hyperlinks : journalists do not cite their sources with footnotes, endnotes, or internal citations like you do for class. Instead, they hyperlink their sources to make it easier for you to track down their evidence.
• Big I deas : You can easily Google main topics of an article to see how other people are talking about it. This will allow you to see more than one perspective on a topic and to cross-check your original article against other writers.
• People : From the author to the people they talked to or about, look up people to read their credentials and determine if they are qualified to write or talk about the relevant topic.
• Jargon: If you find any words that are unfamiliar, look them up. This will help you understand the argument better and make certain the author actually knows what they are writing about. Plus, it will give you some words to use for mind-mapping.

Before we move further into narrowing and mapping our topic, let’s conclude this section by busting a few myths about online information.

Myth # 1: Wikipedia is bad. You’ve likely heard that “you can absolutely not cite Wikipedia [in a formal essay or speech].” While, yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, meaning that anyone can technically add to its content, its pages can be useful for brainstorming. We recommend using Wikipedia in two ways.

First, search Wikipedia for their internally-cited material. If you’ve used Wikipedia recently, you know that the content includes references to other sources that validate the findings. Use those! The references are helpful in locating (often) credible sources for your own research on a topic.

Second, use Wikipedia to clarify complex ideas. Because Wikipedia is a community-based and collaborative encyclopedia, technical language is commonly translated to allow better comprehension. If you aren’t sure about an idea, search Wikipedia for help (but verify the information through other sources, too).

While we don’t recommend using Wikipedia as the source, their content can direct you toward reputable research and clarify difficult concepts.

Myth #2 : Information is neutral. It’s easy to believe that, because something is published online, it’s a neutral and reputable source. Sadly, that’s not the case. In our digital information age, virtually anyone can be an author, and that’s great! But it also reduces the reliability of information that’s being posted.

You’ve likely heard about “fake news,” but we’ll use the term propaganda – biased or misleading information that promotes a particular agenda. Propaganda is junk science, and it can’t be trusted as reliable. For example, you might notice a meme that posts a Harriett Tubman quote in support of strict immigration reform. Digging deeper, you’d likely find that the quote was misrepresented or made up to support an anti-immigrant agenda.

Advertising more subtly influences information. That’s because many information sorting sites, including Google, use an algorithm that’s specific to you. If you and a friend search the same thing, your search results may differ, especially after the first page.

Does that mean you can’t use Google? Of course not. We do! But you should be aware that targeted sites may be rising to the top, and when you search, dig deep and search multiple pages.

Using a Mind Map

After conducting exploratory research to dig a little deeper, a mind map is a second brainstorming strategy to narrow and isolate a topic. A mind map is a visual tool that allows you to chart and expand key topic ideas or concepts.

As you mind map, use the following tips:

• Start with a big idea.
• Break this big concept down into smaller ideas until you can’t break them down anymore.
• Look up synonyms or like words.
• Write down any words you find during your research to tap into the larger conversation.

Figure 3.2 is an example of a mind map based on “college affordability.” You can see how the topic narrowed from college affordability to textbook costs. The mind map also includes words that were used in the Vox article, such as “open textbooks.” Jotting down ideas and language that are used in source information will provide insight into common wording used by topic experts. Keep in mind, if you do not like mind maps, make a list or develop some alternative method, but make certain to keep track of everything.

You can create a mind map using a program like Popplet , Powerpoint, Word, or Google Docs. We usually just grab a blank sheet of paper and a pencil, though.

As you expand topics through a mind map, the narrower that your argument becomes. Instead of a broad approach to “college affordability,” you now have options to explore textbook costs, open textbooks, or open educational resources.

We promise this will not be a waste of your time. Writing down your ideas and thoughts will help you identify keywords for further searching, so you won’t have to come up with words on the fly. As you search, you can easily scratch off words that fail to get you any information, mark the words that seem to get you exactly what you need, or jot down new words you stumble across as you search. All of this will save you time in the long run because it won’t leave you searching for just the right word or trying the wrong word over and over.

Formulating a Specific Purpose Statement

After identifying your general purpose (to inform, to persuade, or to entertain) and brainstorming key topic ideas, you can start to move in the direction of the specific purpose.

A specific purpose statement builds on your general purpose (such as to inform) and makes it more specific (as the name suggests). So, if you’re giving a persuasive speech, your general purpose will be to persuade your audience about, for example, the rising cost of textbooks. Written together, your specific purpose would read, “to persuade my audience to support campus solutions to rising textbook costs.”

Your general purpose and audience will influence how to write your specific purpose statement (see Table 3.3.)

Table 3.3. (Stand Up, Speak Out).

Table 3.3 demonstrates how to move from the general purpose to the specific purpose while keeping your audience in mind.

So far, so good, right? Before moving to your thesis, be aware these common pitfalls for writing specific purpose statements.

Being Too Broad

Specific purpose statements sometimes try to cover far too much and are too broad. You are funneling a broad topic to a specific argument, so don’t stop at the topic. Instead, ask, “am I trying to do too much?”

Consider this specific purpose statement: To explain to my classmates the history of ballet.

This subject could result in a three-hour lecture, maybe even a whole course. You will probably find that your first attempt at a specific purpose statement will need refining.

These examples are much more specific and much more manageable given the limited amount of time you will have:

To explain to my classmates how ballet came to be performed and studied in the U.S. To explain to my classmates the difference between Russian and French ballet. To explain to my classmates how ballet originated as an art form in the Renaissance. To explain to my classmates the origin of the ballet dancers’ clot h ing.

Often, broadness is signaled by the use of “and,” where a specific statement is making two arguments.

These examples cover two different topics:

To explain to my audience how to swing a golf club and choose the best golf shoes. To persuade my classmates to be involved in the Special Olympics and vote to fund better classes for the intellectually disabled.

Too Specialized

The second problem with specific purpose statements is the opposite of being too broad, in that some specific purposes statements are so focused that they might only be appropriate for people who are already extremely interested in the topic or experts in a field. For example:

To inform my classmates of the life cycle of a new species of lima bean (botanists, agriculturalists). To inform my classmates about the Yellow 5 ingredient in Mountain Dew (chemists, nutritionists). To persuade my classmates that JIF Peanut Butter is better than Peter Pan. (organizational chefs in large institutions) .

Formulating a Thesis

While you will not actually say your specific purpose statement during your speech, you will need to clearly state what your focus and main points are going to be. Your specific purpose is still not your main argument. It’s part of the funnel as you move to your main argument, or thesis statement. A thesis statement is a single, declarative statement that outlines the purpose of your speech.

The point of your thesis statement is to reveal and clarify the main argument of your speech.

This part of the process is important because it’s where your topic becomes an argument. Like we mentioned in the introduction, you will funnel your advocacy down to a specific argument that fits the context and goals of your speech.

However, as you are processing your ideas and approach, you may still be working on them. Sometimes those main points will not be clear to you immediately. As much as we would like these writing processes to be straightforward, sometimes we find that we have to revise our original approach. This is why preparing a speech the night before you are giving it is a really, really bad idea. You need lots of time for the preparation and then the practice.

Sometimes you will hear the writing process referred to as “ iterative.” This word means, among other things, that a speech or document is not always written in the same order as the audience finally experiences it. You may have noticed that we have not said anything about the introduction of your speech yet. Even though that is the first thing the audience hears, it may be one of the last parts you actually compose. It is best to consider your speech flexible as you work on it, and to be willing to edit and revise. If your instructor asks you to turn the outline in before the speech, you should be clear on how much you can revise after that. Otherwise, it helps to know that you can keep editing your speech until you deliver it, especially while you practice.

Here are some examples that pair the general purpose, specific purpose statements and thesis statements.

General Purpose: To inform Specific Purpose: To demonstrate to my audience the correct method for cleaning a computer keyboard. Thesis : Your computer keyboard needs regular cleaning to function well, and you can achieve that in four easy steps.

General Purpose : To persuade Specific Purpose: To persuade my political science class that labor unions are no longer a vital political force in the U.S. Thesis : Although for decades in the twentieth century labor unions influenced local and national elections, in this speech I will point to how their influence has declined in the last thirty years.

General Purpose : To persuade Specific Purpose: To motivate my audience to oppose the policy of drug testing welfare recipients. Thesis : Many voices are calling for welfare recipients to have to go through mandatory, regular drug testing, but this pol-icy is unjust, impractical, and costly, and fair-minded Americans should actively oppose it.

General Purpose : To inform Specific Purpose: To explain to my fellow civic club members why I admire Representative John Lewis. Thesis : John Lewis has my admiration for his sacrifices during the Civil Rights movement and his service to Georgia as a leader and U.S. Representative.

Notice that in all of the above examples that neither the specific purpose nor the central idea ever exceeds one sentence. You may divide your central idea and the preview of main points into two sentences or three sentences, depending on what your instructor directs. If your central idea consists of more than three sentences, then you probably are including too much information and taking up time that is needed for the body of the speech.

For thesis statements, remember the following few guidelines:

• Do not write the statement as a question.
• Use concrete language (“I admire Beyoncé for being a talented performer and businesswoman”), and avoid subjective terms (“My speech is about why I think Beyoncé is the bomb”) or jargon and acronyms (“PLA is better than CBE for adult learners.”)

Remember that your thesis statement cements your main argument – it’s the foundation to building the speech. A clear and focused thesis statement define the speech, and we’ll continue building the research and content around your argument.

Case Studies in Specific Purposes and Thesis Statements

Case Study One : Mitchell is taking a Fundamentals of Speech course in his second year of college. As a member of the college’s tennis team, he wants to speak on his favorite subject, tennis. He is assigned an informative speech that should be seven minutes long and use four external sources (other than his own experience). He realizes off the bat that he knows a great deal about the subject as far as how to play and be good at it, but not much about the history or origins or the international impact of the sport. He brainstorms a list of topics: 1. Famous tennis players 2. Rules of tennis 3. How to start playing tennis 4. How to buy or choose equipment for tennis 5. Why tennis is a great sport 6. Tennis organizations 7. Where tennis came from 8. Dealing with tennis injuries 9. Tennis and the Olympics 10. Famous tennis tournaments—grand slam events

However, he also wants to be sure that his audience is not bored or confused. His instructor gives him a chance to get in a small group and have four of his classmates give him some ideas about the topics. He finds out no one in his group has ever played tennis but they do have questions. He knows that everyone in his class is 18-24 years old, single, no children, enrolled in college, and all have part-time jobs.

Critique Mitch’s brainstorm topics based on what you know. What should he do? Can you come up with a good starting specific purpose?

Case Study Two : Bonita is required to give a 5- to 6-minute presentation as part of a job interview. The interview is for a position as public relations and social media director of a nonprofit organization that focuses on nutrition in a five-county region near her home. There will be five people in her audience: the president of the organization, two board members, the office manager (who is also the Human Resources director), and a volunteer. She has never met these people. Bonita has a college degree in public relations, so she knows her subject. She does as much research on the organization as she can and finds out about their use of social media and the Internet for publicity, marketing, and public relations. It does have a Facebook page but is not utilizing it well. It does not have any other social media accounts.

What would you suggest for Bonita? Here are some questions to consider. Should she be persuasive, informative, or inspiring? (General purpose) What should be her specific content area? How can she answer the two questions of the value of her topic to the audience and why would the audience think she is credible?

In this chapter, we discussed best practices for brainstorming topics that funnel to an argument. Argument selection is exciting, and use these tips alongside your other creative information gathering skills. Next up: research!

Speak Out, Call In: Public Speaking as Advocacy Copyright © 2019 by Meggie Mapes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What is Argument?

Argument definition, use of argument in literature, common argument examples, examples of argument in literature, example #1: david copperfield (by charles dickens).

“Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.”

Example #2: Paradise Lost (By John Milton)

“Of Man’s First Disobedience, and the Fruit Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste Brought Death into the World, and all our woe, With loss of Eden, till one greater Man Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat…”

In the above lines, Milton states the reasons why man was thrown out of Eden, what is the reason for all our “woes,” and how “one greater Man” (Jesus Christ) restored our status. The rest of the epical poem develops this argument – to “justify the ways of God to men”.

Example #3: Pride and Prejudice (By Jane Austen)

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”

The plot of the novel revolves around this argument. We see girls and their parents hunting for rich bachelors. The eligible bachelors seem to have no other worries in their life except looking for beautiful partners. Hence, we see a game of matchmaking occupying the entire novel.

Example #4: Rime of the Ancient Mariner (By S. T. Coleridge)

“How a Ship having passed the Line was driven by storms to the cold Country towards the South Pole; and how from thence she made her course to the tropical Latitude of the Great Pacific Ocean; and of the strange things that befell; and in what manner the Ancyent Marinere came back to his own Country.”

Coleridge gives us a summary of his poem in a nutshell.

Function of Argument

Post navigation.

50 Argumentative Essay Topics

Illustration by Catherine Song. ThoughtCo. 

• M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
• B.A., History, Armstrong State University

An argumentative essay requires you to decide on a topic and argue for or against it. You'll need to back up your viewpoint with well-researched facts and information as well. One of the hardest parts is deciding which topic to write about, but there are plenty of ideas available to get you started. Then you need to take a position, do some research, and present your viewpoint convincingly.

Choosing a Great Argumentative Essay Topic

Students often find that most of their work on these essays is done before they even start writing. This means that it's best if you have a general interest in your subject. Otherwise, you might get bored or frustrated while trying to gather information. You don't need to know everything, though; part of what makes this experience rewarding is learning something new.

It's best if you have a general interest in your subject, but the argument you choose doesn't have to be one that you agree with.

The subject you choose may not necessarily be one you are in full agreement with, either. You may even be asked to write a paper from the opposing point of view. Researching a different viewpoint helps students broaden their perspectives. 

Ideas for Argument Essays

Sometimes, the best ideas are sparked by looking at many different options. Explore this list of possible topics and see if a few pique your interest. Write those down as you come across them, then think about each for a few minutes.

Which would you enjoy researching? Do you have a firm position on a particular subject? Is there a point you would like to make sure you get across? Did the topic give you something new to think about? Can you see why someone else may feel differently?

List of 50 Possible Argumentative Essay Topics

A number of these topics are rather controversial—that's the point. In an argumentative essay , opinions matter, and controversy is based on opinions. Just make sure your opinions are backed up by facts in the essay.   If these topics are a little too controversial or you don't find the right one for you, try browsing through persuasive essay and speech topics  as well.

• Is global climate change  caused by humans?
• Is the death penalty effective?
• Is the U.S. election process fair?
• Is torture ever acceptable?
• Should men get paternity leave from work?
• Are school uniforms beneficial?
• Does the U.S. have a fair tax system?
• Do curfews keep teens out of trouble?
• Is cheating out of control?
• Are we too dependent on computers?
• Should animals be used for research?
• Should cigarette smoking be banned?
• Are cell phones dangerous?
• Are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy?
• Do we have a throwaway society ?
• Is child behavior better or worse than it was years ago?
• Should companies market to children?
• Should the government have a say in our diets?
• Does access to condoms prevent teen pregnancy?
• Should members of Congress have term limits?
• Are actors and professional athletes paid too much?
• Are CEOs paid too much?
• Should athletes be held to high moral standards?
• Do violent video games cause behavior problems?
• Should creationism be taught in public schools?
• Are beauty pageants exploitative ?
• Should English be the official language of the United States?
• Should the racing industry be forced to use biofuels?
• Should the alcohol-drinking age be increased or decreased?
• Should everyone be required to recycle?
• Is it okay for prisoners to vote (as they are in some states)?
• Should same-sex marriage be legalized in more countries?
• Are there benefits to attending a single-sex school ?
• Does boredom lead to trouble?
• Should schools be in session year-round ?
• Does religion cause war?
• Should the government provide health care?
• Should abortion be illegal?
• Should more companies expand their reproductive health benefits for employees?
• Is homework harmful or helpful?
• Is the cost of college too high?
• Is college admission too competitive?
• Should euthanasia be illegal?
• Should the federal government legalize marijuana use nationally ?
• Should rich people be required to pay more taxes?
• Should schools require foreign language or physical education?
• Is affirmative action fair?
• Is public prayer okay in schools?
• Are schools and teachers responsible for low test scores?
• Is greater gun control a good idea?

How to Craft a Persuasive Argument

After you've decided on your essay topic, gather evidence to make your argument as strong as possible. Your research could even help shape the position your essay ultimately takes. As you craft your essay, remember to utilize persuasive writing techniques , such as invoking emotional language or citing facts from authoritative figures. 

• 100 Persuasive Essay Topics
• Examples of Great Introductory Paragraphs
• Complete List of Transition Words
• Tips on How to Write an Argumentative Essay
• 501 Topic Suggestions for Writing Essays and Speeches
• How to Write a Narrative Essay or Speech (With Topic Ideas)
• 67 Causal Essay Topics to Consider
• Practice in Supporting a Topic Sentence with Specific Details
• What Is Expository Writing?
• Topical Organization Essay
• 40 Topics to Help With Descriptive Writing Assignments
• How to Outline and Organize an Essay
• Make Your Paragraphs Flow to Improve Writing
• What an Essay Is and How to Write One
• Personal Essay Topics
• Ecology Essay Ideas

• How to Order

Argumentative Essay Guide

Argumentative Essay Outline

Argumentative Essay Outline | Structure Your Essay In 5 Steps

People also read

The Ultimate Guide to Argumentative Essay Writing

Good Argumentative Essay Topics For Beginners - 270+ Ideas

Argumentative Essay Examples - Samples & Tips

Learn Different Types of Arguments and Argument Claims

Preparing to write an argumentative essay but don’t know where to start?

Outlining is an important step in prewriting. Having a defined structure makes the essay writing process much simpler. It helps you logically present your ideas and saves you from getting stuck with writer’s block. 

In this blog, we are going to discuss how to write an outline for your essay. You’ll also get examples and templates to help you out.

So continue reading!

• 1. Argumentative Essay Outline - Classic Pattern
• 2. Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay Outline 
• 3. Argumentative Essay Outline Examples 

Argumentative Essay Outline - Classic Pattern

A basic argumentative essay outline follows the same structure as any other type of essay . The difference lies in the content of the body paragraphs.

Unlike a persuasive essay , where the focus is on convincing the reader through emotional appeals, the argumentative essay presents the argument. 

Some paragraphs introduce your own argument, while others state the opposing arguments and their refutations. 

Here is a sample outline template you could follow for writing your essay:

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job

Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay Outline 

Writing an argumentative essay outline involves organizing your ideas logically to present your argument effectively.

Here are the steps to create a complete outline, along with examples:

Step 1: Choose a Topic and Develop a Thesis Statement 

The first step in writing an outline is selecting a clear, debatable topic that interests you and is relevant to your audience. Check out our argumentative essay topics blog for a wealth of ideas. 

Once you have your topic, you need to develop a thesis statement . The thesis statement should clearly express your position on the topic and outline the main points you will use to support your argument.

Note to Remember: Consider the type of argument you are presenting—whether it's Classical, Rogerian, or Toulmin—when structuring your essay. Each type of argument has a specific structure and approach that can influence how you organize your essay.

Step 2: Structure Your Introduction 

Outline these points for your essay introduction:

• Hook : Open with an engaging statement or question to capture the reader’s interest.
• Background Information: Give context to the topic.
• Thesis Statement: State your main argument.

Step 3: Extract Key Points for Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should focus on one main idea that supports your thesis. Follow these instructions to create effective body paragraphs:

• Topic Sentence: Begin with a clear topic sentence that states the main idea of the paragraph. This sentence should directly relate to one of the points mentioned in your thesis statement.
• Evidence: Provide evidence to support your topic sentence. This can include statistics, research findings, expert opinions, or real-life examples.
• Explanation: Explain how the evidence supports your topic sentence and ties back to your thesis. Clarify the significance of the evidence and how it strengthens your argument.
• Transition: Use transition words in between paragraphs. This helps maintain the flow of your essay and prepares the reader for the next point.

Step 4: Gather Counterarguments and Rebuttals 

• Identify Counterarguments: Recognize potential objections to your thesis to understand the opposing viewpoint.
• Research Counterarguments: Gather evidence and information that supports the opposing stance or critiques your argument.
• Rebuttal Strategy: Develop responses that logically refute counterarguments using additional evidence or alternative perspectives.

Step 5: Outline Conclusion

• Restate Thesis: Summarize your main argument.
• Summarize Key Points: Briefly recap the main points discussed in the body paragraphs.
• Call to Action or Final Thought: Encourage the reader to take action or ponder the implications of your argument.

Argumentative Essay Outline Examples 

Argumentative Essay Outline Template

Argumentative Essay Outline Worksheet

Argumentative Essay Outline Fill In The Blank

Argumentative Essay Outline College

Argumentative Essay Outline High School

Argumentative Essay Outline Middle School

Argumentative Essay Outline Graphic Organizer

Need some sample essays to get a better idea? Give our blog on argumentative essay examples a read to find inspiration!

The Bottom Line! We've covered all the essential elements of structuring your argumentative essay. With this guide, you're now well-prepared to craft a compelling essay that effectively presents your viewpoint and supports your argument with evidence. 

Remember the key components: the introduction that hooks your reader, a clear thesis statement, well-organized body paragraphs, counterarguments, and a strong conclusion. Don't forget to cite your sources properly to give credibility to your work. 

If you are unable to craft a perfect outline, you can always seek the help of an expert and professional essay writer at MyPerfectWords.com.

Our affordable argumentative essay writing service can help you write a top-notch argumentative paper. Our skilled writers conduct research to find facts and evidence to support your claim and write an original essay according to your needs.

So buy custom essay online from our experts today! 

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 5 main parts of an argumentative essay.

An argumentative essay typically consists of five main parts:

• Introduction.
• Body Paragraphs.
• Counterargument and Rebuttal.
• Conclusion.
• References 

What is the structure of the argumentative essay?

The structure of an argumentative essay typically follows this pattern:

• Hook + Background information or context + Thesis statement 
• Body Paragraphs:
• Topic sentence + Evidence + Explanation + Transition 
• Counterargument and Rebuttal
• Conclusion:
• Restates the thesis statement + Summarizes the main point

What is the 5 paragraph format for an argumentative essay?

The 5-paragraph format for an argumentative essay consists of an introduction with a thesis statement, three body paragraphs each presenting a separate argument or piece of evidence, and a conclusion summarizing the main points and restating the thesis. It follows a structured approach to present a clear argument with supporting evidence within five paragraphs.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Nova Allison is a Digital Content Strategist with over eight years of experience. Nova has also worked as a technical and scientific writer. She is majorly involved in developing and reviewing online content plans that engage and resonate with audiences. Nova has a passion for writing that engages and informs her readers.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Are you seeking one-on-one college counseling and/or essay support? Limited spots are now available. Click here to learn more.

160 Good Argumentative Essay Topics for Students in 2024

April 3, 2024

The skill of writing an excellent argumentative essay is a crucial one for every high school or college student to master. In sum, argumentative essays teach students how to organize their thoughts logically and present them in a convincing way. This skill is helpful not only for those pursuing degrees in law , international relations , or public policy , but for any student who wishes to develop their critical thinking faculties. In this article, we’ll cover what makes a good argument essay and offer several argumentative essay topics for high school and college students. Let’s begin!

What is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an essay that uses research to present a reasoned argument on a particular subject . As with the persuasive essay , the purpose of an argumentative essay is to sway the reader to the writer’s position. However, a strong persuasive essay makes its point through diligent research and emotion while a strong argumentative essay should be based solely on facts, not feelings.

Moreover, each fact should be supported by clear evidence from credible sources . Furthermore, a good argumentative essay will have an easy-to-follow structure. When organizing your argumentative essay, use this format as a guide:

• Introduction
• Supporting body paragraphs
• Paragraph(s) addressing common counterarguments

Argumentative Essay Format

In the introduction , the writer presents their position and thesis statement —a sentence that summarizes the paper’s main points. The body paragraphs then draw upon supporting evidence to back up this initial statement, with each paragraph focusing on its own point. The length of your paper will determine the amount of examples you need. In general, you’ll likely need at least two to three. Additionally, your examples should be as detailed as possible, citing specific research, case studies, statistics, or anecdotes.

In the counterargument paragraph , the writer acknowledges and refutes opposing viewpoints. Finally, in the conclusion , the writer restates the main argument made in the thesis statement and summarizes the points of the essay. Additionally, the conclusion may offer a final proposal to persuade the reader of the essay’s position.

How to Write an Effective Argumentative Essay, Step by Step

• Choose your topic. Use the list below to help you pick a topic. Ideally, a good argumentative essay topic will be meaningful to you—writing is always stronger when you are interested in the subject matter. In addition, the topic should be complex with plenty of “pro” and “con” arguments. Avoid choosing a topic that is either widely accepted as fact or too narrow. For example, “Is the earth round?” would not be a solid choice.
• Research. Use the library, the web, and any other resources to gather information about your argumentative essay topic. Research widely but smartly. As you go, take organized notes, marking the source of every quote and where it may fit in the scheme of your larger essay. Moreover, remember to look for (and research) possible counterarguments.
• Outline . Using the argument essay format above, create an outline for your essay. Then, brainstorm a thesis statement covering your argument’s main points, and begin to put your examples in order, focusing on logical flow. It’s often best to place your strongest example last.
• Write . Draw on your research and outline to create a first draft. Remember, your first draft doesn’t need to be perfect. (As Voltaire says, “Perfect is the enemy of good.”) Accordingly, just focus on getting the words down on paper.
• Does my thesis statement need to be adjusted?
• Which examples feel strongest? Weakest?
• Do the transitions flow smoothly?
• Do I have a strong opening paragraph?
• Does the conclusion reinforce my argument?

Tips for Revising an Argument Essay

Evaluating your own work can be difficult, so you might consider the following strategies:

• Read your work aloud to yourself.
• Record yourself reading your paper, and listen to the recording.
• Reverse outline your paper. Firstly, next to each paragraph, write a short summary of that paragraph’s main points/idea. Then, read through your reverse outline. Does it have a logical flow? If not, where should you adjust?
• Print out your paper and cut it into paragraphs. What happens when you rearrange the paragraphs?

Good Argumentative Essay Topics for Middle School, High School, and College Students

Family argumentative essay topics.

• Should the government provide financial incentives for families to have children to address the declining birth rate?
• Should we require parents to provide their children with a certain level of nutrition and physical activity to prevent childhood obesity?
• Should parents implement limits on how much time their children spend playing video games?
• Should cell phones be banned from family/holiday gatherings?
• Should we hold parents legally responsible for their children’s actions?
• Should children have the right to sue their parents for neglect?
• Should parents have the right to choose their child’s religion?
• Are spanking and other forms of physical punishment an effective method of discipline?
• Should courts allow children to choose where they live in cases of divorce?
• Should parents have the right to monitor teens’ activity on social media?
• Should parents control their child’s medical treatment, even if it goes against the child’s wishes?
• Should parents be allowed to post pictures of their children on social media without their consent?
• Should fathers have a legal say in whether their partners do or do not receive an abortion?
• Can television have positive developmental benefits on children?
• Should the driving age be raised to prevent teen car accidents?
• Should adult children be legally required to care for their aging parents?

Education Argument Essay Topics

• Should schools ban the use of technology like ChatGPT?
• Are zoos unethical, or necessary for conservation and education?
• To what degree should we hold parents responsible in the event of a school shooting?
• Should schools offer students a set number of mental health days?
• Should school science curriculums offer a course on combating climate change?
• Should public libraries be allowed to ban certain books? If so, what types?
• What role, if any, should prayer play in public schools?
• Should schools push to abolish homework?
• Are gifted and talented programs in schools more harmful than beneficial due to their exclusionary nature?
• Should universities do away with Greek life?
• Should schools remove artwork, such as murals, that some perceive as offensive?
• Should the government grant parents the right to choose alternative education options for their children and use taxpayer funds to support these options?
• Is homeschooling better than traditional schooling for children’s academic and social development?
• Should we require schools to teach sex education to reduce teen pregnancy rates?
• Should we require schools to provide sex education that includes information about both homosexual and heterosexual relationships?
• Should colleges use affirmative action and other race-conscious policies to address diversity on campus?
• Should public schools remove the line “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance?
• Should college admissions officers be allowed to look at students’ social media accounts?
• Should schools abolish their dress codes, many of which unfairly target girls, LGBTQ students, and students of color?
• Should schools be required to stock free period products in bathrooms?
• Should legacy students receive preferential treatment during the college admissions process?
• Are school “voluntourism” trips ethical?

Government Argumentative Essay Topics

• Should the U.S. decriminalize prostitution?
• Should the U.S. issue migration visas to all eligible applicants?
• Should the federal government cancel all student loan debt?
• Should we lower the minimum voting age? If so, to what?
• Should the federal government abolish all laws penalizing drug production and use?
• Should the U.S. use its military power to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
• Should the U.S. supply Ukraine with further military intelligence and supplies?
• Should the North and South of the U.S. split up into two regions?
• Should Americans hold up nationalism as a critical value?
• Should we permit Supreme Court justices to hold their positions indefinitely?
• Should Supreme Court justices be democratically elected?
• Is the Electoral College still a productive approach to electing the U.S. president?
• Should the U.S. implement a national firearm registry?
• Is it ethical for countries like China and Israel to mandate compulsory military service for all citizens?
• Should the U.S. government implement a ranked-choice voting system?
• Should institutions that benefited from slavery be required to provide reparations?
• Based on the 1619 project, should history classes change how they teach about the founding of the U.S.?
• Should term limits be imposed on Senators and Representatives? If so, how long?
• Should women be allowed into special forces units?
• Should the federal government implement stronger, universal firearm licensing laws?
• Do public sex offender registries help prevent future sex crimes?
• Should the government be allowed to regulate family size?
• Should all adults legally be considered mandated reporters?
• Should the government fund public universities to make higher education more accessible to low-income students?
• Should the government fund universal preschool to improve children’s readiness for kindergarten?

Health/Bioethics Argumentative Essay Topics

• Should the U.S. government offer its own healthcare plan?
• In the case of highly infectious pandemics, should we focus on individual freedoms or public safety when implementing policies to control the spread?
• Should we legally require parents to vaccinate their children to protect public health?
• Is it ethical for parents to use genetic engineering to create “designer babies” with specific physical and intellectual traits?
• Should the government fund research on embryonic stem cells for medical treatments?
• Should the government legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill patients?
• Should organ donation be mandatory?
• Is cloning animals ethical?
• Should cancer screenings start earlier? If so, what age?
• Is surrogacy ethical?
• Should birth control require a prescription?
• Should minors have access to emergency contraception?
• Should hospitals be for-profit or nonprofit institutions?

Good Argumentative Essay Topics — Continued

Social media argumentative essay topics.

• Should the federal government increase its efforts to minimize the negative impact of social media?
• Do social media and smartphones strengthen one’s relationships?
• Should antitrust regulators take action to limit the size of big tech companies?
• Should social media platforms ban political advertisements?
• Should the federal government hold social media companies accountable for instances of hate speech discovered on their platforms?
• Do apps such as TikTok and Instagram ultimately worsen the mental well-being of teenagers?
• Should governments oversee how social media platforms manage their users’ data?
• Should social media platforms like Facebook enforce a minimum age requirement for users?
• Should social media companies be held responsible for cases of cyberbullying?
• Should the United States ban TikTok?
• Is social media harmful to children?
• Should employers screen applicants’ social media accounts during the hiring process?

Religion Argument Essay Topics

• Should religious institutions be tax-exempt?
• Should religious symbols such as the hijab or crucifix be allowed in public spaces?
• Should religious freedoms be protected, even when they conflict with secular laws?
• Should the government regulate religious practices?
• Should we allow churches to engage in political activities?
• Religion: a force for good or evil in the world?
• Should the government provide funding for religious schools?
• Is it ethical for healthcare providers to deny abortions based on religious beliefs?
• Should religious organizations be allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices?
• Should we allow people to opt out of medical treatments based on their religious beliefs?
• Should the U.S. government hold religious organizations accountable for cases of sexual abuse within their community?
• Should religious beliefs be exempt from anti-discrimination laws?
• Should religious individuals be allowed to refuse services to others based on their beliefs or lifestyles? (As in this famous case .)
• Should the US ban religion-based federal holidays?
• Should public schools be allowed to teach children about religious holidays?

Science Argument Essay Topics

• Would the world be safer if we eliminated nuclear weapons?
• Should scientists bring back extinct animals? If so, which ones?
• Should we hold companies fiscally responsible for their carbon footprint?
• Should we ban pesticides in favor of organic farming methods?
• Should the federal government ban all fossil fuels, despite the potential economic impact on specific industries and communities?
• What renewable energy source should the U.S. invest more money in?
• Should the FDA outlaw GMOs?
• Should we worry about artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence?
• Should the alternative medicine industry be more stringently regulated?
• Is colonizing Mars a viable option?
• Is the animal testing worth the potential to save human lives?

Sports Argument Essay Topics

• Should colleges compensate student-athletes?
• How should sports teams and leagues address the gender pay gap?
• Should youth sports teams do away with scorekeeping?
• Should we ban aggressive contact sports like boxing and MMA?
• Should professional sports associations mandate that athletes stand during the national anthem?
• Should high schools require their student-athletes to maintain a certain GPA?
• Should transgender athletes compete in sports according to their gender identity?
• Should schools ban football due to the inherent danger it poses to players?
• Should performance-enhancing drugs be allowed in sports?
• Do participation trophies foster entitlement and unrealistic expectations?
• Should sports teams be divided by gender?
• Should professional athletes be allowed to compete in the Olympics?
• Should women be allowed on NFL teams?

Technology Argumentative Essay Topics

• Should sites like DALL-E compensate the artists whose work it was trained on?
• Should the federal government make human exploration of space a more significant priority?
• Is it ethical for the government to use surveillance technology to monitor citizens?
• Should websites require proof of age from their users? If so, what age?
• Should we consider A.I.-generated images and text pieces of art?
• Does the use of facial recognition technology violate individuals’ privacy?
• Is online learning as effective as in-person learning?
• Does computing harm the environment?
• Should buying, sharing, and selling collected personal data be illegal?
• Are electric cars really better for the environment?
• Should car companies be held responsible for self-driving car accidents?
• Should private jets be banned?
• Do violent video games contribute to real-life violence?

Business Argument Essay Topics

• Should the U.S. government phase out the use of paper money in favor of a fully digital currency system?
• Should the federal government abolish its patent and copyright laws?
• Should we replace the Federal Reserve with free-market institutions?
• Is free-market ideology responsible for the U.S. economy’s poor performance over the past decade?
• Will cryptocurrencies overtake natural resources like gold and silver?
• Is capitalism the best economic system? What system would be better?
• Should the U.S. government enact a universal basic income?
• Should we require companies to provide paid parental leave to their employees?
• Should the government raise the minimum wage? If so, to what?
• Should antitrust regulators break up large companies to promote competition?
• Is it ethical for companies to prioritize profits over social responsibility?
• Should gig-economy workers like Uber and Lyft drivers be considered employees or independent contractors?
• Should the federal government regulate the gig economy to ensure fair treatment of workers?
• Should the government require companies to disclose the environmental impact of their products?
• Should companies be allowed to fire employees based on political views or activities?
• Should tipping practices be phased out?
• Should employees who choose not to have children be given the same amount of paid leave as parents?
• Should MLMs (multi-level marketing companies) be illegal?
• Should employers be allowed to factor tattoos and personal appearance into hiring decisions?

In Conclusion – Argument Essay Topics

Using the tips above, you can effectively structure and pen a compelling argumentative essay that will wow your instructor and classmates. Remember to craft a thesis statement that offers readers a roadmap through your essay, draw on your sources wisely to back up any claims, and read through your paper several times before it’s due to catch any last-minute proofreading errors. With time, diligence, and patience, your essay will be the most outstanding assignment you’ve ever turned in…until the next one rolls around.

Looking for more fresh and engaging topics for use in the classroom? You might consider checking out the following:

• 125 Good Debate Topics for High School Students
• 150 Good Persuasive Speech Topics
• 7 Best Places to Study
• Guide to the IB Extended Essay
• How to Write the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay
• AP Lit Reading List
• How to Write the AP Lang Synthesis Essay
• 49 Most Interesting Biology Research Topics
• High School Success

Lauren Green

With a Bachelor of Arts in Creative Writing from Columbia University and an MFA in Fiction from the Michener Center for Writers at the University of Texas at Austin, Lauren has been a professional writer for over a decade. She is the author of the chapbook  A Great Dark House  (Poetry Society of America, 2023) and a forthcoming novel (Viking/Penguin).

• 2-Year Colleges
• ADHD/LD/Autism/Executive Functioning
• Application Strategies
• Best Colleges by Major
• Best Colleges by State
• Big Picture
• Career & Personality Assessment
• College Essay
• College Search/Knowledge
• College Success
• Costs & Financial Aid
• Data Visualizations
• Dental School Admissions
• Extracurricular Activities
• Graduate School Admissions
• High Schools
• Homeschool Resources
• Law School Admissions
• Medical School Admissions
• Navigating the Admissions Process
• Online Learning
• Outdoor Adventure
• Private High School Spotlight
• Research Programs
• Summer Program Spotlight
• Summer Programs
• Teacher Tools
• Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

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

My Speech Class

Public Speaking Tips & Speech Topics

166 Argumentative Essay Topics

Jim Peterson has over 20 years experience on speech writing. He wrote over 300 free speech topic ideas and how-to guides for any kind of public speaking and speech writing assignments at My Speech Class.

Writing an argumentative essay is hard enough. But picking a good topic can sometimes get you stuck before you’ve even started.

Although it seems like a small part of the essay writing process, your topic idea can actually make or break your paper. Suppose the issue you’ve settled on doesn’t carry enough potential to be researched and explored from different sides. In that case, you may end up wasting a lot of time on unproductive work before you finally give up and try to find a better subject.

That’s why we compiled an extensive catalog of argumentative essay topics organized by subject matter that you can use for inspiration. Feel free to browse through all sections or jump to the area you’re looking for.

In this article:

Choosing a Great Argumentative Essay Topic

What makes a good argumentative essay topic, interesting and controversial, immigration, racism, and native american issues, science and research, technology and social media, health, medical, and nursing, psychology and mental health, music, popular culture, and other creative endeavors, funny, easy, and simple.

Before we jump into the lists, let’s go over what you need to look for in an essay topic.

Many students assume that they can pick an issue first and then think about their essay later. But that actually sets you up for potential disappointment. A topic may seem tenable or defensible at first, but once you dig a bit deeper, it may turn out the issue is settled beyond doubt, and there’s no real point in writing about it. It may also be a good idea to sketch out your argumentative essay outline and even draft a thesis statement before making a final decision about what you want to explore.

Here’s a helpful video that explains the importance of preliminary research:

Can We Write Your Speech?

Get your audience blown away with help from a professional speechwriter. Free proofreading and copy-editing included.

Another thing to consider is how fascinating the topic is for you . It’s great to engage your audience, but you can’t really be sure if an issue is captivating for your teacher or professor. But you can be entirely sure if it’s interesting to you. And the more you care about the subject you’ve chosen, the more enjoyable it will be for you to put in the work.

It may seem at first that you can write an essay about anything, so why bother thinking too much about the topic? Well, you can write about anything, but not everything you write can fit the requirements of your assignment. An argumentative essay has to fit a specific format and style, and the topic you pick has to conform to those. Here are a few main characteristics of a good argumentative essay topic:

If no one disagrees with the argument you’re trying to make, what’s the point of arguing about it? Trying to convince your audience that texting while driving is dangerous is a waste of time because the assumption is that most people don’t need convincing. That’s why it’s crucial to pick an issue with at least some validity on both sides.

If your topic is not specific enough, you can’t really make a good point one way or the other. Should we do more to protect animals? That depends—are we talking about rhinos or mosquitos? And who should do the protecting—governments or ordinary citizens? Drill down your topic to something you can make a definitive point about.

If you can’t find something to back your argument with, then maybe it’s purely a matter of opinion. Are pancakes better than pizza? Who’s to say? A good topic allows you to make a point based on facts. That said, defending an insupportable position is sometimes good practice for pure critical thinking and works great for impromptu assignments where there is no time for research.

Of course, after you’ve picked a topic, you still have to write the actual essay. Here’s a video to help guide you through the process:

166 Argumentative Essay Topic Ideas (Organized in Sections)

Below you’ll find a number of lists of argumentative essay topics organized in sections by subject matter. They range from sports to history and anything in between. Keep in mind that many of the issues have to do with more than one field of knowledge, so there is some overlap between sections.

You may notice that all of the topics are in the form of a question. We’ve done that to make them neutral towards the issue they touch upon, but for the purposes of an argumentative essay, you might want to convert them to a statement that conveys the claim you’ll support in your paper.

One of the best ways to ensure your audience is engaged in your essay is to choose a topic that’s, to some extent, contentious. Your teacher or professor is unlikely to doze off if the issue at hand is something that everyone has a strong opinion about. Controversy will make your job easier, too—it’s a lot more painless to do research and write when you have a genuine interest in the topic.

But there’s also a pitfall to hot-button topics, especially age-old ones. There’s a chance the arguments you choose have been made a thousand times already. That’s not to say you should never write about euthanasia or abortion. Just pick your ideas carefully and make sure they’re fresh and original to avoid making your audience yawn.

Below are a few controversial argumentative essay topics from across subject matters to give you inspiration:

• Should human cloning be allowed?
• Should abortion be subject to stricter regulation?
• Should there be greater gun control?
• Do video games cause violent behavior?
• Should the death penalty be abolished?
• Is torture justifiable as an interrogation technique?
• Should there be any exceptions to free speech?
• Did the #metoo movement go too far?
• Is capitalism the only effective economic system?

Most topics on this page can work for any academic level in which students are already versed in research and persuasive writing. But in this section, we’ve collected issues specifically related to education and sorted them into the different stages of school. So besides college, here you’ll find topics that can be used by high school and middle school students.

For College

Below is a selection of argumentative essay ideas that have to do with college life. Is college worth it? Is it too expensive? Read on to find similar questions.

• Should everyone go to college?
• Is college education overrated?
• Is college admission overly competitive?
• Are Ivy League colleges worth the cost?
• Has college tuition become too expensive?
• Should family income play a role in determining who gets a scholarship?
• Is a gap year beneficial or a waste of time?
• Are some college majors more valuable than others?
• What are the benefits of an MBA?
• Is an online college degree as good as one from a brick-and-mortar college?

For High School

Here you’ll find a collection of topics related to high school and all of its triumphs and struggles—perfect for students in this age group.

• Should schools be required to have security?
• Is standardized testing helping or hurting students?
• Does high school encourage creativity or conformity?
• Should high school students work during the school year?
• Should high school students be required to take drug tests?
• Should arts education be voluntary in high school?
• Should the senior year be voluntary?
• Is prom overrated?

For Middle School

Middle school is a great time to start developing writing skills and the ability to make a strong argument. Here’s a list of topics on middle school that are bound to be relatable for students of that age.

• Do teachers give middle school students too much homework?
• Should energy drinks be banned for middle schoolers?
• Should vending machines be banned in schools?
• Is school cafeteria food too unhealthy?
• Should middle school be single-sex or co-ed?
• Is distant learning effective for middle school students?
• Should students have a choice on what subjects to study in middle school?
• Should learning a foreign language be required in middle school?

As a bonus, we’re including a special section on bullying—an ongoing problem at all school levels that’s always worth discussing, including in an academic paper.

• Should schools do more to prevent bullying?
• Should parents of bullies be held responsible for their children’s behavior?
• Where is the line between pranks and bullying?
• Do kids bully others because they are mistreated at home?
• Is cyberbullying less harmful than real-life bullying?
• How should cyberbullying be punished?

To make children write an essay, even if it’s just one page, you definitely need to give them a topic they care about. Here are a few ideas:

• Is it ever acceptable to eat dessert before dinner?
• Is it OK for kids to read grown-up books?
• Should kids be allowed to watch grown-up movies?
• Should children get paid when they get good grades?
• Is it better to be a single child or to have siblings?
• Do parents treat their daughters differently than their sons?
• Should parents punish kids if they haven’t done their chores?

Whether you’re looking for a topic for your political science term paper or simply need a strong topic idea for your persuasive writing class, you’ll find something worth exploring in the list below.

• Are US elections representative of the will of the people?
• Should the voting age be lowered?
• Should voting be mandatory?
• Should the Electoral College be abolished?
• Should corporations pay more taxes?
• Should senators and house representatives have term limits?
• Should recycling be mandatory?
• Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
• Should same-sex marriage be allowed?
• Should healthcare be free for everyone?
• Will universal basic income be beneficial for society?

Religious issues often elicit a strong response, but beliefs are not always subject to rational argumentation. Still, such topics often touch on society as a whole and can be great subjects for a paper.

• Should creationism be part of the school curriculum?
• Is religion responsible for war?
• Is science an enemy of religion?
• Should public prayer be banned in schools?
• Should religion be taught in schools?
• Should laws be affected by religion?
• Should churches be required to pay taxes?

History is always up for debate, and there’s plenty of credible sources to explore, so if you need an essay topic for your history class, feel free to pick one from the list below.

As a bonus, we’ve added a couple of specialized subsections on World War 2 and American history.

• Can we ever know the “truth” about historical events?
• Is life better now than it was 100 years ago?
• Have peaceful revolutions ever led to real change?
• What caused the fall of the Roman Empire?
• Was Julius Caesar a tactical genius or a deranged dictator?
• Did European colonialism help or harm the colonized populations?
• Did nuclear weapons help make the world safer or more dangerous?
• Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the only way to end World War 2?
• Should the US have stayed out of World War 2?
• What caused the rise of Nazism in Germany?
• Was Stalin’s rule more harmful than Hitler’s?
• Could World War 2 have been avoided if Hitler had been admitted to art school?

American History

• Who was the greatest US president of all time?
• Could the Civil War have been avoided?
• Was the Declaration of Independence a declaration of war?
• Was the Constitution a proslavery document?
• Should the US founding fathers who owned slaves be revered as much as those who didn’t?
• How did Abraham Lincoln’s assassination affect Reconstruction?

Here we have a group of issues that are often related, but we sometimes wish they weren’t. In any case, they’re an excellent opportunity to practice argumentative writing.

• Should it be mandatory for Americans to speak English fluently?
• Should immigrants who enter the US illegally be granted residency?
• Should children of immigrants who enter the US illegally be entitled to public education?
• Is affirmative action helping or hurting racial equality?
• Should the US government pay reparations for slavery?
• Is the Black Lives Matter movement equivalent to the Civil Rights movement?
• Should Columbus Day be abolished and replaced with Indigenous Peoples’ Day?
• Should Native Americans be compensated for how settlers treated them?

Here you’ll find topics related to various scientific fields that you’re bound to find evidence on to build a solid research paper.

• Should the government fund scientific research?
• Should corporate interests influence scientists?
• Do people have enough trust in science?
• What is the biggest issue facing humanity that scientists should focus on the most?
• Should we spend resources looking for alien life?
• Is space travel worth the cost?
• Do humans cause climate change?
• Is fracking harmful to the environment?
• Are scientific breakthroughs or government regulations a better solution to the environmental crisis?

Many issues around technology and social media are up for debate, so they can serve as an excellent basis for a persuasive essay.

• Is technology helping or hurting society?
• Has the internet caused more harm than good to society?
• Are we becoming too dependent on computers?
• Is technology making us more isolated?
• Is AI dangerous for humanity?
• Are smartphones dangerous?
• Is social media helping us stay connected or making us more lonely?
• Are social media companies responsible for the spread of fake news?
• Does social media contribute to political radicalization?
• Should Facebook be banned from collecting data from users?
• Should people be allowed to stay anonymous online?

In this section, we’ve curated argumentative essay topics related to health and medicine that are worth exploring.

• Should the morning-after pill be sold to underage teens?
• What is the best way to fight the obesity epidemic?
• Are GMOs dangerous?
• Should there be limits on sugary drink sizes?
• Is healthcare a fundamental human right?
• Should assisted suicide be legalized?
• Should doctors be banned from promoting drugs?
• Should medical marijuana be legal?
• Should parents be able to deny medical treatment for their children?
• Are nurses compensated fairly?
• Should nurses be allowed to prescribe drugs?
• Is the nursing profession better suited for women?

If you’re struggling to come up with an argumentative essay topic for your psychology class, feel free to pick one from the list below.

• Does screen time negatively affect children’s psyche?
• Should psychotherapists inform the police if a client admits to breaking the law?
• Do dreams have any meaning?
• Is positive thinking helpful or harmful?
• Can lie detectors ever be trusted?
• Are projective tests such as inkblots reliable?
• Can hypnosis help us remember forgotten events?
• Is prejudice against different people inherent to humans?
• Is anxiety ever helpful?

There’s no shortage of discussions surrounding sports, but they’re often too specialized to be interesting for the layman. Here are a few broad and contentious ones that can lay the grounds for a strong argumentative essay.

• Should athletes be considered role models?
• Should coaches make as much money as players?
• Should athletes face repercussions if they don’t stand for the National Anthem?
• Is football too dangerous?
• Is sports betting different from casino gambling?
• Is cheerleading a real sport?
• Do sports rely too much on computer predictions nowadays?
• Should performance-enhancing drugs be allowed in sports?

Here you’ll find argumentative essay topics related to music, films, and other art forms that shape today’s pop culture.

• Is music getting better or worse over time?
• Is listening to music an effective remedy against stress?
• Are television shows an accurate representation of the American lifestyle?
• Did the golden age of Hollywood pass?
• Should celebrities be considered role models?
• Should any artwork be censored?
• Is art unique to humans, or can it be observed in other animals?

If you care about animals, you might want to write an argumentative paper on a topic related to animal welfare. Here are a few ideas:

• Should animal research be banned?
• Should zoos or aquariums be banned and replaced with wildlife reserves?
• Should fur be banned?
• Should we stop eating animals?
• Should the government try to save endangered species?
• Is hunting for sport justifiable, or should it be banned?
• Do animals have emotions?
• Do pets help kids learn to be caring and empathetic?

Sometimes you just don’t want to deal with complex and serious issues or excessive research. That’s why we curated a collection of light-hearted and easy argumentative essay topics.

• Is complaining helping us deal with stress?
• Is talent more important than hard work or vice versa?
• How much compromise is OK in a relationship?
• Should couples live together before getting married?
• How important is it to keep your home clean and tidy?
• At what age do you become an adult?
• Are parents entitled to knowing everything about their kids?
• How long is it acceptable to stay in a restaurant after finishing your meal?

Looking for a topic for a different type of essay? We’ve compiled a huge catalog in our Essay Topics page. If you want something that carries a stronger emotional charge for your paper, speech, or debate, you can also check out our list of Controversial Topics .

127 Funny Controversial Topics

121 Funny Debate Topics for Your Class

Leave a Comment

I accept the Privacy Policy

Reach out to us for sponsorship opportunities

Vivamus integer non suscipit taciti mus etiam at primis tempor sagittis euismod libero facilisi.

© 2024 My Speech Class

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.

Analyzing Famous Speeches as Arguments

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

Traditionally, teachers have encouraged students to engage with and interpret literature—novels, poems, short stories, and plays. Too often, however, the spoken word is left unanalyzed, even though the spoken word has the potential to alter our space just as much than the written. After gaining skill through analyzing a historic and contemporary speech as a class, students will select a famous speech from a list compiled from several resources and write an essay that identifies and explains the rhetorical strategies that the author deliberately chose while crafting the text to make an effective argument. Their analysis will consider questions such as What makes the speech an argument?, How did the author's rhetoric evoke a response from the audience?, and Why are the words still venerated today?

Featured Resources

From Theory to Practice

Nearly everything we read and hear is an argument. Speeches are special kinds of arguments and should be analyzed as such. Listeners should keep in mind the context of the situation involving the delivery and the audience-but a keen observer should also pay close attention to the elements of argument within the text. This assignment requires students to look for those elements.

"Since rhetoric is the art of effective communication, its principles can be applied to many facets of everyday life" (Lamb 109). It's through this lesson that students are allowed to see how politicians and leaders manipulate and influence their audiences using specific rhetorical devices in a manner that's so effective that the speeches are revered even today. It's important that we keep showing our students how powerful language can be when it's carefully crafted and arranged.

Further Reading

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 3. Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics).
• 4. Students adjust their use of spoken, written, and visual language (e.g., conventions, style, vocabulary) to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for different purposes.
• 5. Students employ a wide range of strategies as they write and use different writing process elements appropriately to communicate with different audiences for a variety of purposes.
• 7. Students conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. They gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and nonprint texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience.

Materials and Technology

• ReadWriteThink Notetaker
• Teacher Background and Information Sheet
• Student Assignment Sheet
• List of Speeches for Students
• Queen Elizabeth I’s Speech with Related Questions
• Historical Speech Research Questions
• Peer Response Handout
• Essay Rubric

This website contains audio of the Top 100 speeches of all time.

Included on this site is audio of famous speeches of the 20th century, as well as information about the speeches and background information on the writers.

The "Great Speeches Collection" from The History Place are available here in print and in audio.

This website includes information on finding and documenting sources in the MLA format.

Preparation

• Review the background and information sheet for teachers to familiarize yourself with the assignment and expectations.  Consider your students' background with necessary rhetorical terms such as claims, warrants, the appeals (logos, pathos, ethos), and fallacies; and rhetorical devices such as tone, diction, figurative language, repetition, hyperbole, and understatement. The lesson provides some guidance for direct instruction on these terms, but there are multiple opportunities for building or activating student knowledge through modeling on the two speeches done as a class.
• Check the links to the online resources (in Websites section) make sure that they are still working prior to giving out this assignment.
• Decide whether you want to allow more than one student to analyze and write about the same speech in each class.
• Look over the  List of Speeches for Students to decide if there are any that you would like to add.
• Look over the suggested Essay Rubric and determine the weights you would like to assign to each category.  For example, you might tell students that Support and Research may be worth three times the value of Style. Customize the Essay Rubric to meet the learning goals for your students.
• Reserve the library for Session Three so the students can do research on their speeches.
• President Obama’s Inauguration Speech.
• Former President Bush’s Defends War in Iraq Speech.
• Former President Bush’s 9/11 Speech.
• Former President Clinton’s “I Have Sinned” Speech.

Student Objectives

Students will

• analyze a speech for rhetorical devices and their purpose.
• identify an author’s purposeful manipulation of language.
• identify elements of argument within a speech.
• write an analysis of a speech with in-text documentation.

Session One

• Begin the lesson by asking students what needs to be present in order for a speech to occur. Though the question may seem puzzling—too hard, or too simple—at first, students will eventually identify, as Aristotle did, the need for a speaker, a message, and an audience.
• The class should discuss audience and the importance of identifying the audience for speeches, since they occur in particular moments in time and are delivered to specific audiences. This is a good time to discuss the Rhetorical Triangle (Aristotelian Triad) or discuss a chapter on audience from an argumentative textbook. You may wish to share information from the ReadWriteThink.org lesson Persuasive Techniques in Advertising and  The Rhetorical Triangle from The University of Oklahoma.
• Next distribute Queen Elizabeth’s speech to the troops at Tilbury and use the speech and its historical context as a model for the processes students will use on the speech they select. Provide a bit of background information on the moment in history.
• Then, as a class, go over  Queen Elizabeth’s speech and discuss the rhetorical devices in the speech and the purpose for each one. Adjust the level of guidance you provide, depending on your students' experiences with this type of analysis. The questions provide a place to start, but there are many other stylistic devices to discuss in this selection.

Discuss the audience and the author’s manipulation of the audience. Consider posing questions such as

• This is a successful speech.  Why?
• Elizabeth uses all of the appeals – logos, pathos, and ethos – to convince all of her listeners to fight for her from the loyal follower to the greedy mercenary.  How?
• The tone shifts throughout the selection.  Where?  But more importantly, why?

Martin Luther King, Jr. uses an appeal to pathos in his “I Have a Dream” speech through his historical allusion to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: “Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.” This is particularly effective for his audience of people sympathetic to the cause of African American men and women who would have been especially moved by this particular reference since it had such a significant impact on the lives of African Americans.

Session Two

• Continue the work from the previous session by distributing the  Analyzing Famous Speeches as Arguments handout and discussing the assignment and what it requires. See the  background and information sheet for teachers for more details.
• Tell students they will be getting additional practice with analyzing a speech as an argument by showing a short  10-minute clip of a presidential speech . Ask students to think about how the particular moment in history and the national audience contribute to the rhetorical choices made by the speaker.
• Lead a discussion of the speech as an argument with regard to purpose and intent. Work with students to identify warrants, claims, and appeals.
• Ask students to consider how the author manipulates the audience using tone, diction, and stylistic devices. What rhetorical devices aided the author’s manipulation of his audience? Discuss a particular rhetorical device that the President used and the purpose it served.
• Share the Essay Rubric and explain to students the expectations for success on this assignment.
• Allow students to select a speech from the List of Speeches for Students . If they wish to preview any of the speeches, they can type the speaker's name and the title of the speech into a search engine and should have little difficulty finding it.

Session Three

• Take the students to the library and allow them to research their speeches. They should locate their speech and print a copy for them to begin annotating for argumentative structure and rhetorical devices.
• What was the speaker up against?  What is the occasion for the speech?
• What did the author have to keep in mind when composing the text?  
• What were his or her goals?  
• What was his or her ultimate purpose?  
• What was his or her intent?
• Remind students that the writer of the speech is sometimes not the person who delivered the speech, for example, and this will surprise some students. Many people assume that the speaker (president, senator, etc.) is always the writer, and that’s not always the case, so ask your students to check to see who wrote the speech. (They might be surprised at the answer. There’s always a story behind the composition of the speech.)
• Help students find the author of the speech because this will challenge some students. Oftentimes, students assume the speaker is the author, and that’s sometimes not the case. Once the speechwriter is identified, it is easier to find information on the speech. Help students find the history behind the speech without getting too bogged down in the details. They need to understand the climate, but they do not need to be complete experts on the historical details in order to understand the elements of the speech.
• If they wish, students can use the ReadThinkWrite Interactive Notetaker to help them track their notes for their essays. Remind them that their work cannot be saved on this tool and should be printed by the end of the session so they can use it in future work.
• For Session Four, students must bring a thesis, an outline, and all of their research materials to class for a workday. Remind them to refer to the Analyzing Famous Speeches as Arguments , the Essay Rubric , and any notes they may have taken during the first two sessions as they begin their work.
• The thesis statement should answer the following question: What makes this speech an effective argument and worthy of making this list?

Session Four

• Set up students in heterogeneous groups of four. Ask students to share their outlines and thesis statements.
• Go around to check and to monitor as students share their ideas and progress. The students will discuss their speeches and their research thus far.
• Have students discuss the elements of an argument that they plan on addressing.
• Finally, have students work on writing their papers by writing their introductions with an enticing “grab” or “hook.” If time permits, have students share their work. 
• For Session Five, students should bring in their papers. This session would happen in about a week.

Session Five

• In this session, students will respond each other's drafts using the Peer Response Handout .
• Determine and discuss the final due date with your students. Direct students to Diana Hacker’s MLA site for assistance with their citations if necessary. 
• Remind students that their work will be evaluate using the essay rubric .  They should use the criteria along with the comments from their peer to revise and polish their work.
• During the process of analyzing  Queen Elizabeth I’s Speech , consider showing the related scene from the film Elizabeth: The Golden Age . Though the text of the speech is drastically cut and altered, seeing one filmmaker's vision for the scene may help reinforce the notion of historical context and the importance of audience.
• Allow students to read and/or perform parts of the speeches out loud. Then, they can share some of their thinking about the argumentative structure and rhetorical devices used to make the speech effective. This activity could happen as part of the prewriting process or after essays have been completed.
• Require students to write a graduation speech or a speech on another topic. They can peruse print or online news sources to select a current event that interests them.  Have them choose an audience to whom they would deliver an argumentative speech.

Student Assessment / Reflections

• After peer response has taken place, use the essay rubric to provide feedback on student work. You may change the values of the different categories/requirements to better suit the learning goals for your classroom.
• Calendar Activities
• Lesson Plans
• Student Interactives
• Strategy Guides

Students explore the ways that powerful and passionate words communicate the concepts of freedom, justice, discrimination, and the American Dream in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

While drafting a literary analysis essay (or another type of argument) of their own, students work in pairs to investigate advice for writing conclusions and to analyze conclusions of sample essays. They then draft two conclusions for their essay, select one, and reflect on what they have learned through the process.

Useful for a wide variety of reading and writing activities, this outlining tool allows students to organize up to five levels of information.

This strategy guide clarifies the difference between persuasion and argumentation, stressing the connection between close reading of text to gather evidence and formation of a strong argumentative claim about text.

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of all three appeals to make its case.

Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning takes a specific representative case or facts and then draws generalizations or conclusions from them. Inductive reasoning must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence. In other words, the facts you draw on must fairly represent the larger situation or population. Example:

In this example the specific case of fair trade agreements with coffee producers is being used as the starting point for the claim. Because these agreements have worked the author concludes that it could work for other farmers as well.

Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization and then applies it to a specific case. The generalization you start with must have been based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence.Example:

In this example the author starts with a large claim, that genetically modified seeds have been problematic everywhere, and from this draws the more localized or specific conclusion that Mexico will be affected in the same way.

Avoid Logical Fallacies

These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Also, watch out for these slips in other people's arguments.

Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. Example:

In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Ethos or the ethical appeal is based on the character, credibility, or reliability of the writer. There are many ways to establish good character and credibility as an author:

• Use only credible, reliable sources to build your argument and cite those sources properly.
• Respect the reader by stating the opposing position accurately.
• Establish common ground with your audience. Most of the time, this can be done by acknowledging values and beliefs shared by those on both sides of the argument.
• If appropriate for the assignment, disclose why you are interested in this topic or what personal experiences you have had with the topic.
• Organize your argument in a logical, easy to follow manner. You can use the Toulmin method of logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to most detailed example, earliest to most recent example, etc.
• Proofread the argument. Too many careless grammar mistakes cast doubt on your character as a writer.

Pathos , or emotional appeal, appeals to an audience's needs, values, and emotional sensibilities.  Pathos can also be understood as an appeal to audience's disposition to a topic, evidence, or argument (especially appropriate to academic discourse). 

Argument emphasizes reason, but used properly there is often a place for emotion as well. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a more legitimate and moving picture of reality or illuminate the truth. For example, telling the story of a single child who has been abused may make for a more persuasive argument than simply the number of children abused each year because it would give a human face to the numbers.  Academic arguments in particular ​benefit from understanding pathos as appealing to an audience's academic disposition.

Only use an emotional appeal if it truly supports the claim you are making, not as a way to distract from the real issues of debate. An argument should never use emotion to misrepresent the topic or frighten people.

• 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

• Shop to Support Independent Journalism
• We Have Issues
• Investigations
• Ethics Policy
• Ad-Free Login

'More empty seats': Reporter shows people 'trickling out of' Trump's rally as he's talking

David McAfee

Senior editor, david joined raw story in 2023 after nearly a decade of writing about the legal industry for bloomberg law. he is also a co-founder and a commissioning editor at hypatia press, a publisher that specializes in philosophical works that challenge religion or spirituality..

People were starting to "trickle out" of Donald Trump's Pennsylvania rally while he was still speaking on Saturday, leaving more "empty seats," according to a campaign reporter for USA Today.

Trump , who early in his speech made waves online when he went off teleprompter to insult President Joe Biden , was also said by some to have confused what state he was in as he spoke in Wilkes-Barre over the weekend.

As Trump spoke past the one-hour mark, some MAGA supporters began to leave, according to reporter Zac Anderson, who covers Trump and Republicans for the news outlet. Anderson was reporting from the rally.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump deep in debt while foreign money keeps coming: disclosure

"Looks like people are starting to trickle out of the Wilkes-Barre Trump rally as he goes past the hour mark," the reporter wrote, including a video update. "There appears to be more empty seats."

Vice President Harris' presidential campaign flagged the news from Anderson, and wrote , "Trump’s audience is exiting as he rambles incoherently in Pennsylvania, leaving even more empty seats."

Watch the video below or click the link.

Stories Chosen For You

Do you think vice president kamala harris should be the next president, 'hard defense to prove': ex-prosecutor pours cold water on trump's possible legal argument.

Donald Trump has been accused of "rambling" and mixing things up more often, leading some to wonder if the former president is merely setting himself up for an insanity defense in court. A former prosecutor says that it won't work.

Trump recently held a press conference during which he talked about a box of Cheerios that was being used as a prop for the ex-president to speak about inflation issues. At one point, Trump said he was going to take the cereal back to his "cottage" and have a "lot of fun."

Trump was also accused Saturday of forgetting in which state his campaign rally was held .

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner over the weekend noted Trump's comments about the Cheerios, leading him to ask, "Umm... ok... doesn't that seem a little... weird?" A commenter responded to the legal analyst, saying, "Duh. Yes. He's prepping for an insanity defense Glenn. That's it. There's nothing more to it."

Kirschner replied, "I've handled insanity cases. It's a very hard defense to prove."

He then added, "Trump is an imbecile, but he does not and will not have a winning insanity defense."

Hours later, Kirschner dropped a video explaining why "Donald Trump WILL NOT have a successful insanity defense at any of his criminal trials."

In his video, Kirschner draws from his personal experience relating to cases involving insanity defenses. He then suggests that a successful claimant actually does not know right from wrong, and therefore they "don't try to get away with their crimes."

"They don't understand that what they did was wrong, was criminal," he said on Saturday. "That's the kind of person where there is a viable and perhaps successful insanity defense."

Regarding Trump, Kirschner says, "The tell-tale sign that somebody knows right from wrong, is not suffering from a severe mental disease or defect that makes it impossible to distinguish right from wrong, is if they try to get away with their crimes."

"Donald Trump has been trying to get away with his crimes every second, every minute, of every day since he committed his many crimes," Kirschner added.

Watch below or click here.

'Trump is lying': Expert finds 'deception' in 'crucial segment' of ex-president's speech

Donald Trump was recently asked about his thoughts on the future of his former ambassador, Nikki Haley , and lied in his response, according to a body language expert.

Trump on Thursday gave a press conference outside the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, where he was asked, "Would you consider having Nikki Haley on the campaign trail for you?"

Trump replied, "I'd love to have her support, yeah. She'd give me – she gave me support, but I'd love to have her go around and campaign."

But the former president's response was filled with red flags that he didn't mean what he was saying, according to Dr. Jack Brown, a renowned expert who has been featured on CNN and ABC News , among others, and has analyzed the 45th president along with previous GOP presidential primary candidates.

"Note as Trump says, 'but I'd love to have her,' he sweeps his right (dominant) hand/arm out laterally, away from him. This is a classic dismissal gesture (i.e., she's trivial, she's inconsequential, she's bothersome, she's an irritant)," Brown wrote Saturday before adding that there is "an additional body language signal here."

"Look carefully at Trump's hand as he sweeps it outward. His right index finger is retracted," according to Brown.

He continued:

"With respect to body language, the index finger on the dominant hand (here, Trump's right hand) is the most powerful digit – signaling the hyper-dominance and confidence (and it's profoundly often misused/abused)... In contrast, when the index finger, particularly on one's dominant hand is retracted, the meaning is the opposite – low confidence, low comfort, and deception."

"Trump is lying," Brown explains.

The expert goes on to flag another moment.

"Immediately after Donald Trump says, 'but I'd love to have her go around and campaign,' Trump displays what is known as a Tight Tongue Jut. A Tight Tongue Jut signals the thought-emotions of disdain, disgust, and repulsion," Brown said. "Note also, Trump closes his eyes as he displays this tongue jut – this eyelid closure, although not a required component of this Tight Tongue Jut serves to accentuate its intensity – much as an infant pushes away creamed-asparagus."

Finally, Brown notes that, "As Trump finishes his answer (speaking the word 'campaign' and for about 2 seconds after, Trump shuffles – shifting his weight from side-to-side."

"This signals Trump's anxiety about interacting with Haley. He's wishing he hadn't said that," the analyst said.

In conclusion, according to Brown, "Donald Trump is lying when he says 'he'd love to have' Nikki Haley campaign for him. Trump doesn't want to interact with Haley at all."

"Donald Trump has contempt for, disdain for, and repulsion toward Nikki Haley. He doesn't want her around," Brown said. "She gives Trump anxiety. He's dismissive of her political value. Trump views Haley as inconsequential and as a pest."

View the analysis below or click the link.

'Lost his marbles': Trump ridiculed for claiming to be 'better looking' than Kamala Harris

Donald Trump on Saturday escalated his personal attacks against Vice President Kamala Harris , going as far as to say he's "better looking" than his opponent, leading to ridicule by critics.

Trump, who was reported to have "empty seats" at his Pennsylvania rally where he also was accused of forgetting in which state he was campaigning , was responding to what he said was a Republican commentator suggesting that Harris is beautiful.

"I say that I am much better looking than her. I'm a better looking person than Kamala," Trump said over the weekend.

The comments didn't go over well online.

Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko said in response to Trump, " This guy has lost his f------ marbles."

Former MSNBC personality Keith Olbermann said, "Let's all chip in to the Buy Donold A Mirror GoFundMe."

Bloomberg TV contributor Daniel Micovic also chimed in:

"Please let him keep speaking...and a rally a day until the election would be ideal," he said.

Former prosecutor Richard Signorelli replied, " Once again, D-O-G help us if this madman becomes potus again."

"We are seeing his crazy thoughts unfiltered now and it's not a pretty sight," he added. "Let's make it stop by uniting to defeat this monster."

Robert A. George, a conservative former editorial writer for Bloomberg Opinion, noted that Trump "does wear more makeup."

Harris' presidential campaign even weighed in, saying, "Trump melts down over Kamala Harris being on the cover of TIME Magazine."

Conservative Army Iraq War Veteran Peter Henlein said, "Trump ’s rally today: I’m better looking than Kamala - no one knows how to pronounce Dana Bash’s name. - Tariffs good. - It should be illegal to criticize the Supreme Court . - TiVo is awesome. - I won Minnesota twice. This is dumb. Stop pretending it isn’t."

On the other hand, popular Trump influencer johnny maga said it's "objectively true" that Trump is better looking than Harris.

Does hosting your political convention in Chicago equal victory? History has an answer

Kari lake foe ruben gallego broke financial transparency law with years-late stock filings, how trump's new gibberish speeches are alienating swing voters.

Copyright © 2024 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs For corrections contact [email protected] , for support contact [email protected] .

• Investigates
• Houston Life
• Newsletters

WEATHER ALERT

55 advisories in effect for 23 regions in the area

Biden plans to use his convention speech to hand off to harris and make case against trump.

Zeke Miller

Associated Press

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris finish speaking about their administration's efforts to lower prescription drug costs during an event at Prince George's Community College in Largo, Md., Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)

WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden will give the keynote address Monday night at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, making a symbolic handoff of his party to Vice President Kamala Harris and pressing the case for what he says is the threat to the country if Donald Trump returns to the White House.

Four weeks ago, Biden ended his bid for reelection as his party descended into a crisis of confidence over his chances against the Republican nominee after a devastating performance in their June debate. Now, Biden is set to receive a rousing welcome from many of the same officials who were itching for him to exit the race.

Recommended Videos

Biden’s aides said the president will use his remarks to deliver the argument for why he believes Harris must replace him and defeat Trump, whom he says is a threat to democracy. Biden will also play up some of his popular accomplishments before he steps out of the spotlight for Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, to take center stage the rest of the week, the aides said.

Biden was greeted by chants of “Thank you, Joe!” on Thursday when he appeared with Harris in Maryland, and aides said he was pleased by the consolidation in the party behind Harris. Biden endorsed Harris minutes after ending his campaign, helping orchestrate a near-seamless handoff of his political operation to his vice president and avoiding a contentious fight in Chicago over the party's future.

While Biden is no longer on the top of the ticket, his influence will be felt in Chicago, albeit in a far smaller role than had he remained the nominee.

Speakers at the convention are expected to make reference to Biden's accomplishments, from helping lead the country out of the COVID-19 pandemic to winning passage of major infrastructure, climate and health care investments. Harris has used Biden's policies as the foundation of her own policy plans.

The convention's logo still calls back to the president's campaign logo, and signage in the United Center will feature a quote from Biden's Oval Office address explaining his decision to drop out, when he exhorted voters to back Harris: “History is in your hands," he said then.

On Monday, signs will feature a regular Biden-ism: "Spread the faith.”

First lady Jill Biden and other members of Biden's family will be in the arena to watch his speech, which will serve as a coda to his 50 years in Democratic politics. Jill Biden will also speak at the convention Monday night.

Harris is expected to attend that night. Biden was not scheduled to be at the convention when Harris speaks in the prime spot on Thursday evening.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Advertisement

Supported by

Harris Plans to Ban Grocery ‘Price Gouging.’ What Does the Evidence Say?

Price increases when demand exceeds supply are textbook economics. The question is whether, and how much, the pandemic yielded an excess take.

• Share full article

By Jim Tankersley and Jeanna Smialek

Reporting from Washington

Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda for her presidential campaign features an argument that blames corporate price gouging for high grocery prices.

That message polls well with swing voters. It has been embraced by progressive groups , which regularly point to price gouging as a driver of rapid inflation, or at least something that contributes to rapid price increases. Those groups cheered the announcement late Wednesday that Ms. Harris would call for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries in an economic policy speech on Friday.

But the economic argument over the issue is complicated.

Economists have cited a range of forces for pushing up prices in the recovery from the pandemic recession, including snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns , and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve. Most economists say those forces are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices in that period.

Biden administration economists have found that corporate behavior has played a role in pushing up grocery costs in recent years — but that other factors have played a much larger one.

The Harris campaign announcement on Wednesday cited meat industry consolidation as a driver of excessive grocery prices, but officials did not respond on Thursday to questions about the evidence Ms. Harris would cite or how her proposal would work.

There are examples of companies telling investors in recent years that they have been able to raise prices to increase profits. But even the term “price gouging” means different things to different people.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Get the best experience and stay connected to your community with our Spectrum News app. Learn More

Continue in Browser

Get hyperlocal forecasts, radar and weather alerts.

Please enter a valid zipcode.

Biden's DNC speech: A handoff to Harris, a rebuke of Trump

President Joe Biden will give the keynote address Monday night at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, making a symbolic handoff of his party to Vice President Kamala Harris and pressing the case for what he says is the threat to the country if Donald Trump returns to the White House.

What You Need To Know

President joe biden is set to deliver the keynote address at the first night of the democratic national convention in chicago on monday biden's speech is set to be both a symbolic handoff of the democratic party to vice president kamala harris, as well as a blistering rebuke of republican presidential candidate donald trump biden's aides said the president will use his remarks to deliver the argument for why he believes harris must replace him and defeat trump, whom he says is a threat to democracy the president will also play up some of his popular accomplishments before he steps out of the spotlight for harris and her running mate, minnesota gov. tim walz, to take center stage the rest of the week, his aides said.

Four weeks ago, Biden ended his bid for reelection as his party descended into a crisis of confidence over his chances against the Republican nominee after a devastating performance in their June debate. Now, Biden is set to receive a rousing welcome from many of the same officials who were itching for him to exit the race.

Biden's aides said the president will use his remarks to deliver the argument for why he believes Harris must replace him and defeat Trump, whom he says is a threat to democracy. Biden will also play up some of his popular accomplishments before he steps out of the spotlight for Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, to take center stage the rest of the week, the aides said.

"He's looking forward to, as he tends to do, speak directly to the American people, talk about the moment that we're at, what's at stake, and continue to talk about an issue that is incredibly important to him, which is unity, making sure that we're unified and we continue to do the work that the president has been successful in doing in the past three-and-a-half years," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a briefing on Monday .

Jean-Pierre went on to say that Biden recognizes the "incredibly important moment" he will have at the convention.

"I think you could expect this president to  focus on these remarks in the next several days, leading up to Monday," She said. "I think you can expect this president to take this moment -- he understands this is an incredibly important moment that he will have next week at the Democratic National Convention. He’s still very much the leader of the party, right? And he takes that very seriously. And he’s also very proud of his vice president."

Biden was greeted by chants of "Thank you, Joe!" on Thursday when he appeared with Harris in Maryland, and aides said he was pleased by the consolidation in the party behind Harris. Biden endorsed Harris minutes after ending his campaign, helping orchestrate a near-seamless handoff of his political operation to his vice president and avoiding a contentious fight in Chicago over the party's future.

While Biden is no longer on the top of the ticket, his influence will be felt in Chicago, albeit in a far smaller role than had he remained the nominee.

Speakers at the convention are expected to make reference to Biden's accomplishments, from helping lead the country out of the COVID-19 pandemic to winning passage of major infrastructure, climate and health care investments. Harris has used Biden's policies as the foundation of her own policy plans.

The convention's logo still calls back to the president's campaign logo, and signage in the United Center will feature a quote from Biden's Oval Office address explaining his decision to drop out, when he exhorted voters to back Harris: "History is in your hands," he said then.

On Monday, signs will feature a regular Biden-ism: "Spread the faith."

First lady Jill Biden and other members of Biden's family will be in the arena to watch his speech, which will serve as a coda to his 50 years in Democratic politics. Harris was expected to attend that night. Biden was not scheduled to be at the convention when Harris speaks in the prime spot on Thursday evening.

Biden is not the only big Democratic standard-bearer expected to speak at next week's convention. Multiple outlets report that former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are expected to speak, as well as former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the party's 2016 nominee for president, are also set to be on tap for the event. NBC News also reported that the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter is expected to give a speech on behalf of his grandfather.

• Coffee House

Elon Musk has a point about free speech in Britain

• 12 August 2024, 6:59am

If there is one thing that can be said about Elon Musk, whether you like him or not, he is certainly an argument for the great man theory of history. Rather than the human story just being just a series of social forces pushing us like waves, a single individual can steer events in a totally different direction. 

Before Musk’s takeover of Twitter, the social media site  was driving the English-speaking world towards more progressive  social norms, and it’s unlikely that the Great Awokening would have happened without it, especially both the Black Lives Matter and the transgender movement. The former culminated with the summer protests of 2020 when 19 people were killed in the United States and several billion dollars’ worth of damage was caused. (Smaller protests in Britain resulted in some police officers being injured, and its effects  on our institutions  were considerable.)

It did so because Twitter users came from a very specific, socially radical section of society and were pushing culture as a whole (as  Kristian Niemietz  likes to point out, Twitter  is  now real life.) Because there was social pressure to conform to certain progressive views, so there was a general drift to the left, which historian Tom Holland likened to the hoplite phalanx in classical Greece, where the body of men would invariably drift in one direction as each sought the protection of their comrade’s shield beside them. 

The organisation itself and its employees had a progressive tilt and its system of moderation was clearly run in a partial way, in particular with users being banned for pointing out biological facts.

Most popular

Julie burchill, reginald d. hunter and the cowardice of the comedy class.

That issue is what provoked Elon Musk to buy the site. Musk is opposed to what he calls the ‘woke mind virus’ and was animated by the case of his  own transgender child . His purchase changed the nature of Twitter dramatically, and with it the direction of politics; he introduced a free-speech policy that encouraged far more right-wing users to join and even amnestied many who had previously been banned, as well as reversing the shadow-banning rumoured to suppress some users. He has also tweeted several conservative or at least anti-woke talking points, his most recent being on the  global history of slavery.  On top of this, he signal-boosts several right-wing accounts and this week even went as far as sharing a fake  headline posted by the co-leader of Britain First, a tiny, ultra-right wing group  so far outside of the Overton Window it can’t be seen on the horizon. 

Now Musk is at war with the British government over free speech, repeatedly tweeting about ‘two-tier Kier’ and some of the  harsh sentences handed  out after the riots. He seems to be having a good time and, if I’m honest, if I was one of the world’s richest men I’d probably use the money to launch my own one-man war against the British establishment.

That establishment seems rather keen on the conflict and, seemingly unable to do anything about the underlying problems, many in Britain have blamed Musk for recent unrest. Jessica Simor, a prominent human rights lawyer, has suggested that Twitter  be closed down ,  insisting that :  ‘Freedom of speech is not an absolute right in Europe; it is a qualified right. This means Musk that it is criminal to incite racial hatred and/or violence; exactly what X has been allowing and you have been doing. We had fascism and mass murder in Europe – we don’t want it again.’ (It’s worth noting that in  2016 Simor was Britain’s  nominee for Judge at the European Court of Human Rights.)  

Even people with nominally liberal opinions think that free speech shouldn’t mean ‘the untrammelled capacity to spread disinformation’ . A  Leeds MP said  that ‘Free Speech is not the same as hate speech. Responsible bodies have a duty to protect people from hate speech in democratic societies.’ Yet one might say that free speech  is  the same as hate speech, and it’s entirely a matter of definition and perception.

Journalists have  suggested that Elon be banned  from Britain, and a senior police officer has said that  Americans could be ‘extradited’  over their posts (good luck with that). Others compare Twitter under Musk to  Paris under Nazi occupation.

I happen to  agree  with Musk that Britain’s free speech laws are troubling, even if  comparisons with the Soviet Union  are silly (the USSR imprisoned 200,000 people just for telling jokes). Britain suffers worse from the extremes of American-driven progressivism because we have no First Amendment, which means that people regularly get  arrested and prosecuted simply for saying or posting things.  

To think that this isn’t a problem strikes me as complacent, and there is something especially depressing about  having the ‘Larry the Cat’ account explain to  Musk that Britain does actually have freedom of speech because of the Human Rights Act, something which perfectly encapsulates the combination of British twee, smugness and midwittery. Believing that we do have freedom of speech because the law says so is a bit naïve, when  Russia, China and North Korea  also make the same claim.

Membership of the Human Rights Act and European Court of Human Rights are among those things British centrists define as what makes a grown-up country, and withdrawing would put us in the same camp as Russia and Belarus; perhaps they might like to ponder the countries  where Twitter is banned.

Yet that is at least the direction in which we are heading, and  as the  Telegraph   reports,  a review of the Online Safety Bill could force tech companies ‘to take down or restrict the visibility of content deemed to be dangerous but not against the law’. 

Blaming communication technology for unrest is nothing new, of course. Printing certainly unleashed the Reformation, as well as fuelling the witch-crazes with pamphlets written by excitable partisans fuelling fear of the out-group. The French Revolution followed a sudden and rapid explosion in newspaper consumption among Parisians in the late 18 th  century. The turmoil in America in the 1960s, for both good and ill, was directly linked to the spread of the television, Martin Luther King in particular being skilled at using the soundbite for the evening news slot. Facebook spread the Arab Spring, and it will be interesting to see how many who supported that  now call for a clampdown on  social media. And now we have Twitter, which fuelled first the Great Awokening and whatever this is.

Neither is it unusual for people to reach for bizarre outside forces to explain disorder. After the Broadwater Farm riot,  the  Daily Express  sensed the hand of the Kremlin . The Birmingham riots in 2005 were blamed on  pirate radio stations , and the London riots six years later were attributed to BlackBerry Messenger.

What is different now is the power of one particular social media platform, and the clear political agenda of its owner. This is different in scale to almost any media in the past, including newspapers at their over-mighty zenith, and presents challenges to traditional ideas of free speech, since Musk has far more power to voice his opinion than almost anyone now or previously.

He has arguably used that power to amplify some quite unpleasant people, one reason that Jonathan Freedland  blamed Musk  for the recent unrest (although he doesn’t actually call on him to be charged, as the headline suggests).

‘He decided to make X a safe space for racism and hate almost as soon as he bought it,’ Freedland wrote: ‘The effect was instant. One analysis of tweets found a “ nearly 500 per cent increase  in use of the N-word in the 12-hour window immediately following the shift of ownership to Musk”. The same study also found that posts including “the word ‘Jew’ had increased fivefold since before the ownership transfer”, and something tells me those tweets weren’t tributes to the comic style of Mel Brooks.’

It’s certainly true that Twitter is now swarming with some incredibly racist users and it’s often quite grim. These days I’ll see some mad looking account tweeting about Muslims enforcing Sharia Law on Britain and click to see ‘500,000 followers’. It seems to be everywhere: oh look, there’s a guy with cartoons of Africans looking like cannibals, there’s the guy in Cambodia tweeting about how ‘Europe has fallen’, here’s yet another joke about the N-word.

Yet the problem is more to do with incivility than misinformation in my view, the biggest downside of ‘free speech’. Freedland suggested that ‘It’s clear that schools should be teaching information hygiene, so children learn to avoid fake news the way they would avoid poisonous food. Clear, too, that we need online safety legislation with teeth and if, as  Sadiq Khan has suggested , that means toughening up laws so new they are yet to be fully implemented, so be it.’ 

Yet evidence of a misinformation epidemic  is actually very thin , and ‘fake news’ is a very nebulous concept.

After all, most newspapers regularly run articles about women committing sex crimes which are  clearly carried out by men . Is that fake news? Misinformation? What about the 120,000 killed by austerity, much repeated but untrue? What about Brexit being orchestrated by the Russians? What about misinformation spread by groups exaggerating threats and violence to minorities, such as Hope Not Hate, whose spokesman claimed  that a Muslim woman had been attacked with acid  – the same Hope Not Hate which Freedland quoted as experts?

The entire BLM movement was spurred by misinformation about specific  incidents involving police  brutality and  misinformation  about statistics. The catchphrase  ‘Hands up don’t shoot’,  spread across the media and by protesters, was never uttered. There has been no reckoning for this, there were no calls to shut down Twitter, and yet the Floyd protests were lethal. Maybe underlying racism is still an issue that should be addressed, but actual misinformation behind the BLM movement led to many deaths.

Even citing a statistic is misinformation and fake news if  other relevant statistics are left out . The Guardian , for instance, regularly reports on disparities in arrest or imprisonment rates between different groups, without mentioning that these actually reflect disparities in crime rates. Is that misinformation? Incitement?

Similarly, dozens of churches in Canada were attacked, some burned down, over misinformation in the press about indigenous children being killed and buried in Christian schools, among the newspapers promoting this story being  the  Guardian  in a  number of articles . That entire story turned  out to be a fabrication . The only difference between that sort of fake news, and the bad kind, is that journalists don’t feel uncomfortable repeating it.

There is much to criticise over Elon-era Twitter, and  opinion seems divided over whether it as got worse , but one solid improvement is Community Notes, which would have made a huge difference to the 2013-2020 discourse. Since Musk took over, many potentially influential tweets have been stopped in their tracks because they are community-noted, including several claims of racist police brutality which have turned out to be misleading.

There are also many cases where social media has been more correct than the mainstream, such as when the BBC and several  others reported that Israelis had bombed a hospital in Gaza.  That ‘fake news’ had catastrophic effects.

If the authorities are keen to clamp down on social media, then the past week has only further cemented the idea that mainstream institutions cannot really be trusted to report the truth.

Indeed, many incidents from the past week would probably not have been reported otherwise, including the many instances of white people being attacked in UK cities. These would have gone unreported because journalists in mainstream news outlets find it too distasteful to report and a threat to community relations. 

Alex Thomson,  chief correspondent and presenter for  Channel 4 News, posted a number of videos over the weekend showing ‘Mobs of Asian men’ attacking ‘lone white individuals’ in Middlesbrough. He then deleted them.

Even the BBC  reporting of the incident in Birmingham  was designed not to tell anyone anything about who was doing what.

It is true that the political atmosphere on Twitter is almost irredeemably grim and depressing now, but this trend has gone in tandem with the media becoming more and more opaque.

The finale to the week’s protests will only have further eroded people’s sense of confidence, with the obviously  implausible threats of nationalist marches in London,  including such totally absurd locations like Walthamstow. Presumably it suited both the virtually non-existent far-right to claim to be able to mobilise an army, and for the groups of Londoners to gather together and LARP the Spanish Civil War for the thousandth time. The fact that most newspapers ran with this same narrative of Britain United, siding with the ‘ anti-fascist’ protesters brandishing Socialist Worker placards , will only have fuelled suspicion about the media’s curating of the news.

The more that media comes to be seen as biased and engaged in curating a narrative, the more that social media will become extreme, a positive feedback loop which Scott Alexander once explained  in a post called Neutral vs Conservative  – as the mainstream in the US drew left, conservatives went off to form their own ghettos, which further pushed those institutions even more left:

So there we have Twitter. Many regular users are now fleeing the site for other climes, and it does feel like there is something of a brain drain, although perhaps ‘status-drain’ is a better term. I can understand this to some extent, since the site does seem to be more unpleasant; it’s upsetting when your community gets disrupted by the arrival of unvetted outsiders who don’t share your values and change the atmosphere.

I’ve often likened our age to the Reformation, but in this analogy the roles are reversed, with an overarching central authority trying to control and muffle thousands of uncontrollable independent clerics preaching their own morality, many of them clearly mad and dangerous. Perhaps, if I were to stretch this analogy to breaking point, Elon Musk represents to the Cathedral the figure of the Devil. But he is certainly, in the historical sense, a great man.

This article first appeared in Ed West’s Wrong Side of History Substack.

Unlock unlimited access

Subscribe to unlock 3 months of unlimited access for just £3

Already a subscriber? Log in

The tyranny of the self-service check out

Also in Society

Ukraine could deliver a killer ideological blow to Putin

Also by Ed West

Is Britain falling apart?

Did the Prime Minister have an affair with a woman half his age?

Want to join the debate?

Join the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first 3 months for just £3.