making more of an effort to keep it clean. The chance of resolving this dispute slips away
as Mike increasingly focuses the disagreement on Steve’s character. If this conversation
continued, it is unlikely that it would be resolved.
In academic debates as well as in public and personal arguments, it is beneficial for both
parties to agree on what the point of stasis is. Intercollegiate debate associations propose
“resolutions,” which students then argue over in competition for an entire school year.
In public arguments, such as debates between candidates or policy arguments on C–
SPAN or in the news, points of stasis are usually made very clear. Primary and general
election presidential debates are a good example. Hopefuls for their party’s nomination
use primary debates as a forum to differentiate themselves from one another using points
of stasis. For example, even though all the Democratic presidential hopefuls might agree
numerous and widespread. For instance, the presidential nominees from different political
parties likely disagree on the fundamental role of health care in the United States as well
Personal arguments also benefit from a clear identification of disagreement. Instead of
allowing the argument to wander, as Steve and Mike do in the example above, knowing
Ceremonial, Deliberative, and Forensic; and Fact, Value, and Policy
Once two parties engaged in a discussion have decided precisely what they disagree over,
it helps to classify the disagreement. This section will describe two different ways to
classify arguments and the benefits of these classification schemes. The first scheme is
ceremonial, deliberative, and forensic. These classifications were first identified by
First, let us look at ceremonial, deliberative, and forensic forms of argument. These three
categories are described as three different purposes for addressing an audience (Lawson–
Tancred, 1991). Ceremonial speeches are primarily given for entertainment reasons.
Examples of a ceremonial speech include eulogies, roasts, introductions, and award
Deliberative and forensic arguments are what are more traditionally recognized as
arguments. While ceremonial arguments deal with praise or blame, deliberative and
forensic arguments are different because of the nature of what they are trying to establish.
More specifically, a deliberative argument is one that focuses on future occurrences
(Lawson-Tancred, 1991). The U.S. Congress deliberates over the success or failure of
policies. They may argue that the nation is headed toward either success or disaster. In
either case, the future cannot be known for certain. Instead, the success of an argument is
accidental shootings. The answers to either of these topics cannot be known for certain.
Instead, well-supported and well-researched arguments must be pieced together to
convince other senators that the government should take this action.
Forensic arguments are very different. Instead of dealing with future successes or
failures, a forensic arguer tries to establish the certainty of a past occurrence, or that a
person definitely performed a specific act. The television show CSI: Crime Scene
The types of argument help arguers to classify what they are discussing. If the parties in
an argument recognize that the argument is of a certain variety, they will better
understand how they differ, how their differences can be made clearer, and what
responsibilities each arguer has to “prove” his or her case.
example, people argue that aliens exist, black holes exist, or that King Arthur never
existed. The burden for these arguers is simple: they must provide evidence
demonstrating the existence or likely existence of a certain person or phenomenon. More
difficult than proving that something does exist is proving that something does not exist.
Propositions of value pose a more difficult task for arguers. Their burden is greater
because they must first establish that a phenomenon exists, then they must construct a
persuasive evaluation or judgment of that phenomenon. Politically involved people might
argue that “liberals are bad” or that “conservatives are bad.” Though this may seem
simple to argue, as most people are familiar with the terms liberal and conservative, these
While the previous example of propositions of value dealt with the arguer’s and the
audience’s mutual agreement and understanding of terms and concepts, other examples
deal with value claims based on facts that have yet to be proved. For instance, people
may argue that globalization is bad for the working class in the United States. They might
support this proposition of value with arguments suggesting that globalization takes jobs
away from workers without presenting them with any benefits in return. Though many
The most complex propositions involve those of policy (Warnick and Inch, 1994) explain
that “policy claims call for a specific course of action and focus on whether a change in
policy or behavior should take place.” This type of proposition involves three different
types of burdens for the arguer. First, he or she must establish that a phenomenon exists.
When the act was moving through government, many argued that it was necessary in
order to hold insurance companies accountable, lower health-care costs, guarantee more
choice, and enhance the quality of care for all Americans. However, others opposing the
act have argued the legislation is unconstitutional in that it requires Americans to
purchase health insurance. Many question the role that the government should play in the
issue. The burdens and responsibilities were very clear for those in support of the act in
this instance. First, the act’s supporters had to provide strong evidence that previous
health-care policies were not adequate. Second, supporters of the act needed to
Does the fact that the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress and the president
mean that the arguers sufficiently established all the necessary burdens and
responsibilities? The complexity of policy propositions (and, more generally, of politics),
and the hot-button issues connected with the Affordable Care Act, mean that the act
remains a controversial piece of legislation with many critics. Many in opposition have
Section II: Burdens
As the first section makes clear, the topics of arguments are of different varieties. Once
people involved in a dispute can agree on the topic of the disagreement, they can then
decide what type of topic they have chosen to argue about. As was previously stated,
identifying the type of dispute allows the parties involved to identify their responsibilities
or burdens in the argument. Though no specific burdens exist for ceremonial speeches or
arguments, different types of burdens have been identified for deliberative or policy
Stock Issues
First, the stock issues are the issues or questions that must be answered in order to
convincingly justify an action or a change in policy. There are four stock issues
(Ziegelmueller & Dause, 1975), including:
1. stock issue of ill
3. stock issue of cure
4. stock issues of cost and benefit
Policies are rarely enacted by our federal government without rigorous debate taking
place. C-SPAN often airs live debates on the floor of the House of Representatives and
the Senate. Members of these bodies of government argue to justify action, such as
amendments to the U.S. Constitution, budget changes, crime policy, and education
spending. However, much like a courtroom, in which the accused is presumed innocent
The second stock issue is blame. The arguer must explain what the cause of the ill is.
Unfortunately, many people believe this is self-explanatory. For instance, many people
believe that television causes acts of violence. Audiences may accept this claim without
much evidence. In describing the ill, an arguer may explain how much violence exists in
The third stock issue involves the cure. At this stage, the arguer must put forth the
solution to the problem he or she has identified. It is not enough to argue that a
problem exists; instead, an effective, practical, and acceptable solution must be proposed.
For instance, poverty might require types of job training or public assistance, while
commissions might be proposed to regulate the quality of work conditions. In other
Other solutions are not solutions at all. These proposals consist of wishes and desires, but
they lack an explanation of how these conditions can be achieved. To make this clearer,
one could watch any one of the daytime talk programs. Oftentimes, a dysfunctional
person or family will be brought onstage to describe their troubles. Audience members
often probe these people with questions and comments, in the hope of making sense of
often fail to explain how the desired love or harmony can be achieved. Good cures must
also not run counter to good reasoning. The arguer should try not to propose a morally
repugnant action as a solution to a problem. Though a solution may appear to eradicate a
problem on paper, the arguer must keep in mind that the solution will be proposed to an
audience, and therefore must be acceptable.
Now that we know that the cure is reasonable and practical, the audience needs to
know the costs and benefits of the proposed solution. In other words, the audience
should be able to visualize why the solution is likely to solve the problems identified in
the argument. For example, if people argue that poverty is a problem, then reducing
Divisions of Controversy
Divisions of controversy are used to direct arguers in any situation toward the issues
involved in a dispute (Ziegelmueller & Dause, 1975). Whether people are arguing issues
of fact, value, or policy, the divisions of controversy outline both the types of disputes
2. the frame of existence of fact
3. the frame of quality
The frame of definition is often used in arguments. Take, for instance, a schoolgirl who
acts up in class. The child is given a note to take home to her parents that explains that
she has received a reprimand for “acting up in class.” The parents visit the teacher and
The dispute between the teacher and the parents stems from a disagreement over the
definition of the child’s behavior. Whereas the teacher defines arguing as “acting up,” the
parents believe the daughter is displaying signs of strength and independence. Similarly,
the parties in an argument often ask each other to define the terms involved. The process
mutually understood. Once the arguing parties can agree on how a word, idea, or concept
is defined, they must know if claims regarding these terms are factual. Take the situation
with the young schoolgirl. Let’s say that both the teacher and the parents agreed that the
definition of “acting up” was “a situation in which a child interrupts or argues with the
Finally, the frame of quality looks at the circumstances under which a certain fact
occurred. In our courts of law, murders are qualified by degree. A person can commit a
third-, second-, or first-degree murder. Though in each case a murder has been
committed, the circumstances surrounding the situation dictate how severely the
murderer will be punished. Similarly, in arguments with friends or family we employ the
frame of quality.
In the situation involving the little girl, the parents and the teacher may ask the girl to
explain why she behaved the way she did in class. Suppose the girl explains that the first
time she yelled because her friend Billy poked her in the head with a pen; the second time
acted up, this new information prompts the teacher to reconsider the fairness of the
punishment.
Some students use these arguments all the time. Students who hand in material late often
explain either why they could not complete the assignment on time or why their grade
Ethos, Logos, and Pathos
Finally, there are three different types of evidence used by arguers. The terms for these
three types of evidence are:
2. logos
3. pathos
Each of these types of evidence influences audiences in different ways. Ethos is based on
ethics. Logos is based in logic. Pathos is emotional evidence. What follows is a brief
description of each type of evidence and several recommendations regarding its effective
use.
Ethos is similar to ethics, and shares a lot with this term. An arguer is said to have ethos
if he or she is trustworthy, credible, or knowledgeable in a certain area. A person with a
great deal of ethos is normally very persuasive. In argument, the ethos of both the speaker
and his or her sources lends credibility and strength to an argument. For example, on
Audience assessments of ethos or credibility can be the result of an unlimited number of
speaker characteristics. Audience members might rely on expertise and status, as well as
on speaking ability, charisma, and appearance. If in the above example people would be
In the above two instances, audiences were able to formulate opinions based on existing
information. People know who both the secretary of defense and Rush Limbaugh are.
What about speakers of whom we have no prior knowledge? How do audiences assess
the ethos or credibility of unfamiliar speakers, such as guest lecturers, candidates for
public office, or people we ask for directions on the street? We encounter unfamiliar
speakers every day. Whether we encounter a new professor in a classroom or listen to a
new personality on television, audience members formulate opinions and attitudes toward
Ethos involves not only audience assessments of speakers but also the sources the
speakers use. The authors or organizations from whom arguers get their information can
affect the strength of their arguments. For example, how trustworthy are cigarette
executives when they use their own research to claim that cigarettes are safe to smoke?
Moreover, how much credibility do political candidates have when they use statistics
supplied by the groups that contributed to their campaigns, such as unions or
Logos is related to logic. Logical evidence usually involves forms of reasoning, statistics,
or some form of empirical research. Today’s high-tech modern society places great value
on logical evidence. This form of evidence is very persuasive in arguments.
Unfortunately, the persuasiveness of logical evidence often causes speakers to use too
much of it.
Logical forms of evidence are compelling for a number of reasons. One reason involves
people’s trust in science. Scientific successes surround us each day in the form of
computers, automobiles, and stereos, to name a few. Many of us know little about how
these and other high-tech items work, but we trust the expertise of the scientists and
engineers who produce them. Similarly, we trust the processes they use in creating these
Logical evidence should not be used to deceive an audience. Logical evidence is simply a
form of support that helps strengthen a claim. If statistics truly support an arguer’s claim,
they should be used. Statistics that have little relevance to the point of disagreement lend
little to a person’s argument. In addition, logical evidence can fatigue an audience. Have
you ever heard a speaker rattle off a list of statistics? Did this excite you and cause you to
want to continue listening, or did it bore you? It probably bored you. Logical evidence
must be used sparingly and intelligently. It is powerful in grabbing people’s attention and
lending weight to claims. It should not, however, be used by itself. One should also
include ethical and emotional evidence.
While political candidates and commercials often use pathos appeals, speakers also rely
heavily on this type of evidence. Arguers may use this type of evidence in many forms,
including touching personal stories, stories of tragedies, or vivid accounts intended to
scare the audience. Unlike logical evidence, emotional evidence helps keep the audience
interested and may help audience members identify with the message the speaker is
trying to communicate. For instance, a speaker may want to persuade an audience not to
drink while boating. The speaker might tell a story that involves the death of a parent in a
tragic boating accident. A story like this might keep an audience involved and prompt it
to act, because most people greatly fear the loss of a parent or another family member.
Section III: Refutation
Once an argument or a persuasive appeal has been presented to an audience, the
argument must be challenged. The speaker might begin by questioning the extent to
which the abovementioned burdens have been satisfied. For instance, if the argument is
over a policy, has the arguer satisfied each of the stock issues? In addition, have all the
key terms been defined, and have all the facts been determined? Once these questions
have been asked, there are several other steps that may be taken to challenge the validity
of an argument.
Lines of Argument
These arguments were designed to be used in policy arguments, but they provide good
direction in challenging claims of all varieties. They are divided into three types:
2. lines of argument on evidence
3. lines of argument on advantages claimed for a specific proposal
These lists should be used when challenging arguments in a debate.
Lines of argument regarding the ill, or problem, with the present system:
The speaker’s evidence does not support the conclusion that he or she is attempting to
reach.
The speaker did not show the harm to be widespread; few facts or examples were
presented.
The speaker did not present examples that cover a sufficient period of time.
The speaker did not present examples that cover or represent a cross section of the
whole.
There are examples to the contrary, followed by the presentation of such examples.
The speaker did not show that the cause given is the only cause, and not merely a
contributing cause.
Lines of argument on evidence:
Do the figures tell us what we really want to know?
Was the observer in a position to get the facts or conduct a study?
Is the observer trained to conduct research? Is he or she an expert?
Is the observer free from prejudice?