36.2: Hybrid Argumentation (Classroom Activity)

REMEMBER AND UNDERSTAND (8 minutes)

Before you create your own method, let’s review the three prominent methods of argumentation via their distinctions as well as what they have in common. When we learn from the past, we can learn from both discoveries, errors, and everything in between to form a new argumentation method. 

 

Shared Fundamentals of Foundational Argumentation Methods: 

1. Presents a persuasive argument 

2. Utilizes evidence to support main ideas/claims

3. Takes the audience’s point of view into consideration

4. Works toward building trust and credibility with the audience

 

Distinctions Per Argumentation Method

1. Aristotelian 

   1. Definition: Classical argumentation (i.e., Aristotelian argumentation) is a style of expression, often written expression, that aims to convince your audience to see your side of an issue.

   2. Structure = Linear

      1. exordium

      2. narratio

      3. propositio

      4. refutatio

      5. confirmatio

      6. digressio

      7. peroratio

   3. Key Elements

      1. Seeks convincing the audience of the writer’s own perspective

      2. Heavily relies on ethos, pathos, and logos

      3. Thesis is clearly articulated early 

2. Rogerian

   1. Definition: Rogerian argumentation is a style of expression, often written expression, that aims to find a middle ground between opposing viewpoints.

   2. Structure = Balanced

      1. introduction: stating the issue

      2. side a: comprehension

      3. side a: validation

      4. side b: conveyance

      5. side b: validation

      6. conclusion: bonding

      7. conclusion: bridging

   3. Key Elements

      1. Seeks to convince the audience of a middle ground perspective

      2. Heavily relies on pluralism—recognizing the value of opposing viewpoints

      3. Thesis is likely delayed and expressed when articulating the middle ground solution

3. Toulmin

   1. Definition: Toulmin argumentation as a style of expression that relies on analysis for advocacy.

   2. Structure = Componential

      1. Claim

      2. Grounds (Evidence)

      3. Warrant (Justification)

      4. Backing 

      5. Qualifier

      6. Rebuttal

   3. Key Elements

      1. Seeks to convince the audience of the underlying structure of the argument

      2. Heavily relies on logical connections between components

      3. Thesis is expressed early on to articulate how the issue is complex and without an unambiguous solution; thusly, the components in the argumentation will bring the audience closer to a solution

 

APPLY AND ANALYZE (20 minutes)

For approximately ten minutes, fill in the Comparison Table in Your Own Words with just a few words per box. Then, share your comparison table with a peer, and analyze how similar and different you and your peer filled in the comparison table. During that analysis, consider revising any part of your comparison table that you think would help you remember the comparisons better. After all, this comparison chart is a tool for you to keep and reference throughout your academic journey in various courses. 

Comparison Table in Your Own Words
Aspect	Aristotelian	Rogerian	Toulmin
Primary Goal
Approach to Opposition
Structure
Best Used For

 

CREATE AND EVALUATE (50 minutes)

Now that you have developed an awareness of prominent argumentation methods, it is time to create your own argumentation method. Sometimes tools of the past cannot fully address unforeseen issues of the present or future. That is all the more reason why you are invited to create an argumentation method that addresses your social justice research issue. 

Your task is to construct a new argumentation method that blends elements from prominent argumentation methods (e.g., Aristotelian, Rogerian, and Toulmin) with your own unique argumentation method creation. Your method should achieve the following: 

1. Incorporate at least one thing from each of the three prominent argumentation methods discussed (e.g., Aristotelian, Rogerian, and Toulmin). That could be something related to a method’s goal, structure, elements, approach, or something else. 

2. Infuse a unique component that can address the present day challenges and/or opportunities of how to express argumentation from your perspective. Then, clarify how your method addresses your social justice research issue. 

3. Name your argumentation method. If you are having trouble thinking of a name, you can use this default naming convention: [Insert your name]’s Hybrid Argumentation Method (e.g., Viggy’s Hybrid Argumentation Method).

4. Write a definition of your argumentation method. 

5. Outline the structure of your argumentation method. 

6. Note key elements of your argumentation method.

 

You may submit your response in the following format: 

Your Argumentation Method
Argumentation Method Questions	Your Argumentation Method Responses
What did you borrow from Aristotelian argumentation?
What did you borrow from Rogerian argumentation?
What did you borrow from Toulmin argumentation?
What is a unique component that you are infusing into your argumentation method?
What is your argumentation method named?
What is the definition of your argumentation method?
What is the outline for your argumentation method?
What does your argumentation method hope to convince the audience of?
What does your argumentation method heavily rely on?
How does a thesis function in your argumentation method?
Optional: Is there anything else you would like to say about your argumentation method?

 

After approximately 40 minutes of creating your argumentation method, share your method with a peer to evaluate each other’s argumentation methods as follows: 

1. Does the argumentation method seem to support emphasizing timing and urgency?

2. Does the argumentation method seem to support establishing trust and credibility?

3. Does the argumentation method seem to support evoking emotion and feeling?

4. Does the argumentation method seem to support expressing reason and logic?

It is okay for there to be “no” responses to those questions if the argumentation method creator intended to not prioritize some of those nuances. For instance, there may be an argumentation method created that strategically avoids evoking emotion and feeling. The goal of this peer discussion is to learn whether your peer saw what you intended then to see from your argumentation method. In other words, hopefully your peer’s yes or no responses to each question about your own argumentation method matches your yes or no responses for your own argumentation method. If not, you probably need to revise something about your argumentation method for clarity and comprehension.