Making Arguments: Reason in Context. Edmond H. Weiss

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ a decision based on who were the “superior advocates,” that is, the better practitioners of the forms and styles of proper argumentation. In this context, superiority is a judgment about virtuosity, or facility in argumentation. Advocates are judged like competitors in a piano competition. Technique and interpretation are highly valued dimensions of artistic expression, and, therefore, how “beautifully” one argues is important in gaining the judge’s adherence to one’s claims.

      The Educator—this judge wants to teach the advocates how to argue. The judge might offer an educational critique while the advocates engage, or provide feedback on the advocates’ performance. The impulse of the Educator is to strengthen the advocates. He or she is forever trying to improve the process of advocacy, and wants to see arguers’ continuous improvement. The educator’s role can easily be merged with the critic’s role, in that teaching advocacy and judging its artfulness go hand in hand.

      The Theorist—the theorist is trying to derive over-arching, perhaps philosophical, principles from the controversy. For the theorist, advocacy is not necessarily about the specific issue or case that is under consideration. Rather, the judge looks for that abstract or theoretical principle that guides his/her decision. The decision to accept a particular argument is based more on its adherence to an ideal concept. This ideal concept need not be expressed as an abstraction or a moral precept; it can be as simple as “rationality” or “consistency.”

      The Jurist—this judge is committed to protecting the process within which advocacy proceeds. He or she may render a decision on purely procedural or formal grounds. The “victory” to one advocate or another might be achieved on a technicality, or by deference to a regulative rule. (“Technicality” is what the losing side calls the procedural flaw.) Fairness and egalitarianism dominate the argumentative enterprise, and anything that can corrupt the purity of an essentially judicial process—equal cases treated equally—is to be eschewed.

      The Politician—this judge evaluates positions on their efficacy in achieving a public objective. When a judge renders a decision politically, he or she is evaluating an argument on the criterion of expediency. Often issues are framed in terms of a compelling societal need, and so the judge must determine the best course of action.

      The Scientist—this judge emphasizes the extensiveness of evidence in support of the position. In this context, advocacy demands production and presentation of all relevant data, research, and investigative evidence. Typically, the judge’s primary focus will be on the quality of evidence, the quantity of evidence, and/or the method by which the evidence was obtained. The judge, in such cases, acts like a research scientist, evaluating all the available evidence. This judge’s decision is guided by strict adherence to the rules of inference, inferential statistics, and scientific testing of hypotheses and theories.

      How Judging Philosophies Work

      The judging philosophies are archetypes or ideals. In practice, no one can evaluate an argument exclusively from one of these judging perspectives. Indeed, any particular instance will almost certainly represent a hybrid of two or more of these judging postures. At college and high school debate tournaments, judges are often asked to write and submit their “judging philosophies.” This allows the debaters to learn about how a given judge might respond. When there are multiple judges in a debate, the debaters may need to employ complicated argumentative strategies to address the diversity of judging viewpoints.

      Here are some specific illustrations of how advocates might have to adapt their debating strategies to reflect the expectations of their judges:

      Tabula Rasa. The judge knows something of the issue, but needs to be schooled about the severity of the problem. (What exactly is a “stem cell”?) He or she will need to appreciate the compelling nature of the problem, as well as society’s complicity in the problem’s continuation. The judge will want to know what the advocates offer as a remedy for the problem, as well as some good evidence and argument that the proposed remedy can work. At any point in the debate, the judge could decide that he or she does not have substantial proof for a given issue, and decide not to entertain any possibility of change in a direction away from the status quo.

      Policymaker. This judge understands the issue, and can even offer guidance for alleviating the confusion associated with the conflict. Indeed, this judge may be more disposed toward negotiation than toward winner-take-all debate competitions. He or she will not assist one side or the other in making decision, but may synthesize an outcome that was not obvious in the presentation of disparate positions.

      Critic. The judge’s decision is more idiosyncratic. The likes and dislikes of the judge may influence the decision. Preferences of taste, appropriateness, decorum, and execution greatly vary among judges adopting a critical paradigm. In this case, debaters might have to rethink their vocabulary, the order in which they present arguments, the kinds of data that are most compelling, even their clothing and personal demeanor.

      Educator. The educator often imparts a sense of equifinality in a debate, a term from systems theory suggesting that the current point in the argument could have been reached by many means. While a “decision” is reached, the debaters have a lot to learn, and the decision reflects how much improvement can be made.

      Theorist. The theorist will look for a principle to vote for. If the advocates can enunciate a principle, it may help them win favor with the judge. If we are debating the Patriot Act, for example, an advocate might argue that safety and security supersede freedom as goals in our society. The judge’s adherence to the principle could help one side to prevail over the other.

      Jurist. One must know the rules and guidelines for advocacy and adhere to those requirements that apply to the current context. Procedural rules must be followed. Evidentiary standards must be upheld. Only permissible argumentative behaviors are tolerated. Fairness must be maintained. Neither side in the controversy can have an advantage stemming from violating the rules; nor can the judge can render a decision based on such an unfair advantage. Indeed, the jurist judge may be skeptical toward an entire argument if even a small part of it violates “due process.”

      Politician. The judge wants a remedy and will vote for the plan that can be implemented as quickly as possible. The judge is driven by a sense of the urgency of the issue, and debaters should stress the directness with which the urgency can be resolved. Politician judges are particularly skeptical toward proposals that seem to delay or stall action.

      Scientist. The judge may ask for evidence, and may expect the advocates to know what the evidence means and how it was gathered. The scientist judge will expect an advocate to answer any indictments of the evidence, and defend it against other studies and counter-evidence. Debaters would be unwise to overstate the certainty in the data and should never appear to be suppressing contrary or inconvenient facts. Scientists are especially wary of false claims of cause-and-effect, especially the reasoning error known as the “false positive.”

      Modalities of Judgment

      The classification and description of these philosophies does not tell the whole story when it comes to judging arguments. First, there are many other ways to describe judging paradigms, as well as an indefinitely large number of additional judging philosophies. Second, and more important, the judging philosophies are greatly influenced and nuanced by differences among individuals acting in their capacities as judges. We cannot pretend that the variability among people does not also factor into how individuals judge arguments. In fact, we acknowledge that those differences among individuals can account for as much (or possibly more) of what goes into judging an argument than do the judging philosophies.

      Most СКАЧАТЬ