首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Models for Arguments I. Three models for arguments A. the first model for arguing is called【T1】______: 【T1】______ —arguments ar
Models for Arguments I. Three models for arguments A. the first model for arguing is called【T1】______: 【T1】______ —arguments ar
admin
2019-05-14
85
问题
Models for Arguments
I. Three models for arguments
A. the first model for arguing is called【T1】______: 【T1】______
—arguments are treated as war
—there is much winning and losing
—it is a【T2】______model for arguing【T2】______
B. the second model for arguing is arguments as proofs:
—warranted【T3】______【T3】______
—valid inferences and conclusions
—no【T4】______in the adversarial sense【T4】______
C. the third model for arguing is【T5】______: 【T5】______
—the audience is【T6】______in the argument【T6】______
—arguments must【T7】______the audience【T7】______
II. Traits of the argument as war
A. very dominant: it can shape【T8】______【T8】______
B. strong arguments are needed
C. negative effects include:
—【T9】______are emphasized【T9】______
—winning is the only purpose
—this type of arguments prevent【T10】______【T10】______
—the worst thing is【T11】______【T11】______
D. implication from arguments as war: 【T12】______【T12】______
—e. g. , one providing reasons and the other raising【T13】______【T13】______
—the other one is finally persuaded
III. Suggestions on new ways to【T14】______of arguments【T14】______
A. think of new kinds of arguments
B. change roles in arguments
C.【T15】______【T15】______
【T12】
Models for Arguments
Good morning, everyone. My name is David and I am good at arguing. So, welcome to our introductory lecture on argumentation. Why do we want to argue? Why do we try to convince other people to believe things that they don’t want to believe? Is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way to treat other human being, try and make them think something they don’t want to think? Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.
(1)The first model—let’s call this the dialectical model—is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that’s like—there’s a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.(2)And that’s not really a very helpful model for arguing, but it’s a pretty common and fixed one. I guess you must have seen that type of arguing many times, in the street, on the bus, or in the subway. Let’s move on to the second model. The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs. Think of a mathematician’s argument. Here’s my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?(3)Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid? Does the conclusion follow the premises?(4)No opposition, no adversariality—not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.(5-1)And there’s a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an audience.(7)We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying to convince the audience of something.(6)But there’s another twist on this model that I really think is important, namely, that when we argue before an audience, sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument. That is, you present your arguments in front of an audience who are like the juries that make a judgment and decide the case.(5-2)Let’s call this model the rhetorical model, where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.(8)It dominates how we talk about arguments, it dominates how we think about arguments, and because of that, it shapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments. We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target. We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. We want killer arguments. That’s, the kind of argument we want. It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments. When I’m talking about arguments, that’s probably what you thought of, the adversarial model. But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, negative effects on how we argue.(9)First, it elevates tactics over substance. You can take a class in logic argumentation. You learn all about the strategies that people use to try and win arguments, and that makes arguing adversarial: it’s polarizing. And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph—glorious triumph—or disgraceful defeat.(10)I think those are very destructive effects, and worst of all, it seems to prevent things like negotiation and collaboration. Um, I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.(11)And finally—this is really the worst thing—arguments don’t seem to get us anywhere: they’re dead ends. We don’t get anywhere.
Oh, and one more thing.(12)That is, if argument is war, then there’s also an implicit aspect of meaning—learning with losing. And let me explain what I mean.(13)Suppose you and I have an argument. You believe a proposition, and I don’t. And I say, "Well, why do you believe that?" And you give me your reasons. And I object and say, "Well, what about...?" And you answer my objection. And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean? How does it apply over here?" And you answer my question. Now, suppose at the end of the day, I’ve objected, I’ve questioned, I’ve raised all sorts of questions from an opposite perspective, and in every case you’ve responded to my satisfaction.
And so at the end of the day, I say, " You know what? I guess you’re right. " Maybe finally I lost my argument, but isn’t it also a process of learning? So, you see arguments may also have positive effects.(14)So, how can we find new ways to achieve those positive effects? We need to think of new kinds of arguments. Here, I have some suggestions: If we want to think of new kinds of arguments, what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers—people who argue. So try this: Think of all the roles that people play in arguments. There’s the proponent and the opponent in an adversarial, dialectical argument. There’s the audience in rhetorical arguments. There’s the reasoner in arguments as proofs. All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer, but you’re also in the audience, watching yourself argue?(15)Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue? That means you need to be supported by yourself. Even when you lose the argument, still, at the end of the argument, you could say, " Wow, that was a good argument!" Can you do that? I think you can. In this way, you’ve been supported by yourself.
Up till now, I’ve lost a lot of arguments. It really takes practice to become a good arguer in the sense of being able to benefit from losing, but fortunately, I’ve had many, many colleagues who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for me.
OK. To sum up, in today’s lecture, I’ve introduced three models of arguments. The first model is called the dialectical model, the second one is the model of arguments as proofs, and the last one is called the rhetorical model, the model of arguments as performances. I have also emphasized that though the adversarial type of arguments is quite common, we can still make arguments produce some positive effects. Next time, I will continue our discussion on the process of arguing.
选项
答案
learning with losing
解析
细节理解题。讲话者提到:That is,if argument is war,then there’s also an implicit aspect of meaning--learningwith losing.即如果辩论是战争,其隐含的意思是学习伴随着失败,故learning with losing为本题答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/CaEK777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Theimagewasfascinating,asjusticeJohnPaulStevens,aChicagonative,presentedit.Agangmemberandhisfatherarehangi
Acomputerrecordofthebirds’four-monthstudyperiodhasshownsurprisinglysimilaritiesbetweenthepigeons’andhumanperfor
NaturallanguageinterfacesenabletheusertocommunicatewiththecomputerinFrench,English,German,orahuman【S1】______la
Forthelongesttime,Icouldn’tgetworkedupaboutprivacy:myrighttoit;howit’sdying;howwe’reheadedforanevenmore
Asmanyas40%ofuniversitylanguagedepartmentsarelikelytoclosewithinadecade,theformergovernmentadviserchargedw
Asmanyas40%ofuniversitylanguagedepartmentsarelikelytoclosewithinadecade,theformergovernmentadviserchargedw
Thoseofusinvolvedintheinternationalizationofhighereducationrelyonaseriesofassumptionsthatareoftennotsupport
Itisthedutyofsonsanddaughterstotakecareoftheirparents.However,duetothepressurefromworkortheirownfamily,
ModelsforArgumentsI.ThreemodelsforargumentsA.thefirstmodelforarguingiscalled【T1】______:【T1】______—argumentsar
ModelsforArgumentsI.ThreemodelsforargumentsA.thefirstmodelforarguingiscalled【T1】______:【T1】______—argumentsar
随机试题
新婚妇女,停经50天后出现阴道少量流血伴右下腹痛,今晨突然右下腹剧烈疼痛,难以忍受,来院就诊。查体:面色苍白,口唇色淡,腹部稍膨隆,右下腹压痛明显,血压82/60mmHg。妇科检查:子宫稍大、较软,右附件区触及一压痛之包块,阴道后穹隆穿刺得到不凝血。本病例
协助氨基酰-tRNA进入A位的是能将tRNA、mRNA从核蛋白体释放出的是
罗哌卡因的特点描述错误的是
按照《建没工程安全生产管理条例》规定,对达到一定规模的危险性较大的分部分项工程如基坑支护与降水工程、土方开挖工程、模板工程、起重吊装工程、脚手架工程、拆除、爆破工程及国务院建设行政主管部门或者其他有关部门规定的其他危险性较大的工程应当采取以下不含( )项
下列各种产品成本计算方法中,适用于单步骤、大批量生产的是()。
只有门球打得好的人才能加入门球协会;所有门球协会的人都戴着太阳帽,有的退休老同志是门球协会会员;某街道的人都不会打门球。由此不能确认真假的一项是:
一种产品的价值由其质量与价格之间的比率决定。一种产品的价值越高,其会处于越好的竞争地位。所以,对于既定产品而言,或者通过提高质量,或者通过降低价格,都会提高消费者选择这种产品而不选择竞争性产品的概率。以下哪项如果为真,最能支持上述结论?
已知枚举类型声明语句为:enumCOLOR{WHITE,YELLOW,GREEN=8,RED,BLACK=15};则枚举常量RED的值为
ChooseTHREEletters,A-G.WhichTHREEtopicsaretheyinterestedinstudyinginthefuture?AqualityoflifeoftouristsBwil
ThedecisionofestablishingtheUnitedNationswasmadeat
最新回复
(
0
)