Voss & Van Butler Arguments

Argumentation is an extremely important process for humans because it allows us to evaluate our own ideas, while also providing us information about topics through evaluating the arguments of other individuals. Humans for many centuries have used different forms of argumentation for societal functions such as politics, bargaining, and scholarly debate. As James F. Voss and Julie A. Van Dyke discuss in Argumentation in Psychology: Background Comments, argumentation consists of Person A and Person B exchanging ideas. Person A will propose an idea and provide support while Person B will evaluate the proposed idea and possibly provide a counter argument, eventually leading to an outcome that can either be win-loss or a resolution (Voss & Van Dyke
Voss & Van Dyke’s article titled Argumentation in Psychology: Background Comments describes the various components of Toulmin’s theory. The datum and claim give the basis for the argument and are connected by the warrant, which takes the form of “If (datum), then (claim).” (Voss & Van Dyke 2011, 95). Voss and Van Dyke describe the backing as evidence and information that supports the warrant, while the qualifier gives a statement of strength for the warrant. Finally, they describe the rebuttal as a closer that discusses the limitations of the argument (Voss & Van Dyke 2011, 95). This six-component description of argumentation is a very logic-based and puts every argument into one structure and type, possibly misrepresenting certain arguments. Collins and Hahn’s article titled Fallacies of Argumentation discusses the theory of argumentation as focusing on “logical pragmatics”, which “...focuses on the use of arguments in reasoned dialogue.” (Collins & Hahn 2018, 91). This is important because it describes Toulmin’s theory of argumentation as more of an exchange of logic in conversation, rather than something more abstract. Nonetheless, Toulmin’s theory is useful because it breaks down arguments and allows us insight into what is actually going on. If we’re able to see argumentation as an
Voss and Van Dyke’s paper outlines the Pragmadialectics theory as “...a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader…” (p.90). This tells us that this theory of argumentation focuses much more on how the listener accepts the argument, deciding whether the argument is valid or invalid, when compared to Toulmin’s theory. This theory seems to focus more on how the argument is received, rather than just the structure of the argument. Also outlined in Voss and Van Dyke’s paper, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s theory “...tried to provide some sense of certainty by hypothesizing a rational judge.” (p. 97). The authors then continue to explain that this theory relies on a rational judge listening to the argument and validating it, or determining whether or not the argument is certain (Voss & Van Dyke 2011, 97). Comparing this point to the previous theory from Toulmin reveals to us that Voss & Van Dyke’s theory relies on a rational judge to determine an arguments’ certainty, so the rational judge is crucial to establishing the validity of an argument. On the other hand, Toulmin’s theory doesn’t place much emphasis on the listener. For Toulmin, an argument is anything with the six components that I previously