As college students, the Classical Oration seems the most familiar to us simply because it is what high school taught us. "If you have ever written a paper in which you introduced a subject, stated a thesis, made a series of supporting arguments, and drawn a conclusion, you've shown the influence of the Classical oration" (173). Since we are so familiar with this type of argument structure, I think it is the easiest way to present an controversial point. We introduce the subject, we provide our opinion with supporting evidence, we occasionally admit there are other possible ways of looking at the subject, and we make our final statements as to why our stance on the subject is better. I think this is the most clear-cut way to present an argument to someone because it is easy to follow, and it has a simple idea behind it. I think this type of argument is best suited for personal interactions not large settings because of the more narrow viewpoint.
Rogerian Argument is different from Classical Oration because of its use of different contexts. I;m not the most optimistic person, so I believe that most people only really see one way of a subject. "Introduction: The writer describes an issue, a problem, or a conflict. The description is rich enough to demonstrate that the writer fully understands and respects and alternative position or positions" (177). This quote makes me think that this style of arguing is mostly suited to a smaller group of people simply based on how I think people are. The reason we argue and have fights with friends and spouses is because we don't see the other person's point of view on that particular situation. This type of argument is best suited for inspirational speakers. I believe that because they are trying to change something in a larger group of people with a diverse group of beliefs, so acknowledging certain things and then offering a new way to think about it is what makes Rogerian arguments work.
"In the Toulmin model, arguments begin with claims, which are debatable and controversial statements or assertions that you hope to prove" (182). This type of argument is only good for making a statement and backing up that statement. I see this argument being used more in a courtroom setting rather than two friends debating over something superficial.
"If the glove does not fit, you mus acquit." What kind of argument is this quote from the O.J. Simpson trial? Is it even applicable to any of these three terms?
So... I just wrote this huge, awesome comment but the whole thing got deleted... so for the second time around I love your post! It is so true that we learned about the Classical Oration structure in high school. It is fun to know that we know get to use this structure in creating and writing arguments. The Rogerian structure is also awesome because I believe people need to spend more time getting to know each others position on an issue. If you were to write an argumentative paper right now, what structure would you use?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, I just wrote a paper in my Musical Structure and Style class due this morning and I believe I used the Classical Oration mixed with Rogerian. I had to argue why my point of view on 2 Bach compositions so I used a lot of evidence to prove my original point, but I also acknowledged that other ways of looking at the pieces were feasible to someone else's mind. I think it is a mix of both styles, but I may be wrong..
ReplyDelete