Munk Argument Analysis

2352 Words10 Pages
State surveillance as an invasion of privacy in the Munk debates contributes to many areas of expertise knowledge, and critical analysis. Not only have these debaters fought hard to enforce their stance on the issue of privacy invasion, their use of argumentation can be seen in their application and delivery of their arguments. Through the work of Douglass Walton, and Chaim Perelman, we see the greatest influences of their theory produced through debates. Although Aristotle has provided us with a rhetoric background with a review on arguments and audience, Perelman and Walton’s expansion on his theory provide a better understanding of debates in argumentation. Through this paper we will explore the impact of Perelman and Walton in the eyes…show more content…
Perelman has contributed a rhetoric that is largely different from that of Aristotle. With increased focus on the logos and less emphasis on the pathos, to the increased attention on constructions of an argument, over the end result, we can see a move from looking at arguments as in what they produce, to looking at how they are developed to become valid. For Perelman the goal is no longer to seek truth, but to gain elicit adherence (Perelman 1982: 9) Adherence is the key to Perelman’s theory. It is through audience that one gains adherence, much as in a debate. Not only are debaters responsible for debating amongst themselves, but also they seek to gain the adherence of the audience, a form of understanding that is equal and persuasion. The idea of a lively desire, or strong emotion would motivate an audience to act in a certain way. In the case of the Munk Debate on state surveillance, we see this take action when comparing the final polls versus the initial poles. As majority of the audience agrees state surveillance is a true invasion of privacy, it is evident how the con side of the debate has achieved adherence. By exploring the…show more content…
Most of these similarities arise in the description of types of arguments. For Perelman, the focus holds heavy on the logos, or logical aspect to an argument, which is true for Walton as well, however the main difference is that Walton sees arguments as dialectical, or as an interchange between agents. Both work to evaluate what they call strong and full arguments, for Walton those are ones that exclude vagueness and ambiguity and meet the critical questions. When looking at the two views on arguments from analogy, we see Walton’s model through a specific laid out scheme, whereas Perelman’s analogy view is rooted in proportion. Also Walton’s argument schemes can be related to Perelman’s rule of justice. Which is what he claims will validate an argument. Perelman uses the history of rhetoric to expand argumentation, however Walton is not able to make use of this and so we are left to question if something is lost, which leads the reader to try to mine through some of the schemes to find an esthetic set. In relation to debates, we see the search for the next move, or motives. Actors must unwrap what their opponents is seeking to achieve and debunk all facts and examples in order to gain the adherence of the judges and audience. Perelman focuses more on the audience, and how they accept what is being presented to them, and that was evident in the Obama speeches, however if the message that is not

    More about Munk Argument Analysis

      Open Document