409A S19 Harris

English 409A: Argumentation

Tuesday / Thursday, 1:00-2:20 (prime siesta time), B2 350

Randy Harris, HH247, x35362, raha@uwaterloo.ca, 905.699.7410

Office Hours: Tuesday / Wednesday, 9:30-11:00

Course Definitions

argument, noun; 1., a standpoint and a structure of reasons; 2., the reified process of negotiating beliefs, knowledge, and actions, implicating a standpoint and a structure of reasons, often covert.

argumentation, noun; the principles governing acts of coöperative competition, and competitive coöperation, over standpoints.

Course Epitome

Argumentation is the art of the rational, the use of evidence and coherent structures of reasons to advance beliefs and knowledge or counsel action, or to judge claims. But look around you. It's being bludgeoned to death by greed, division, and self-agrandisement; that is, by the motive forces of propaganda and bullshit. This course provides the tools to understand the way in which the irrational and hateful can look appealing, and to find better ways to believe, personally and publically.

There is a tension in arguing, an inevitable and productive one, but one which often leads to imbalance—of discourses, of people, of relationships, of entire cultures. This tension is between arguing to find productive agreement, and to think through issues collectively, on the one hand; and arguing to win, exert dominance, and score points, on the other. We will study these practices with the help of folks like Aristotle of Leontini, Theodore S. Geissel, Hermogenes of Tarsus, Stephen Toulmin, Chaim Perelman, Lucie Olbrecht-Tyteca, Mikhail Bakhtin, Kenneth Burke, Jeanne Fahnestock, John Cleese and Michael Palin. Our main job is to find points of balance in arguments— not compromise, necessarily, because one side can certainly be right, or mostly right, but points on which the argument pivots one way or the other, to probe its workings and explore its recalcitrant commitments. We will aim big: to better develop our ways of understanding and shaping ourselves, others, and our world. We aim to be better arguers and better analysts, but also to be better friends, better citizens, better people, and to make a better world.

Course Objectives

The objectives of 409A are the objectives of liberal arts (the arts of liberty) as a way of life: the enhancement of critical thinking in both the private sphere (exercising judgement) and the public sphere (engaging others).

Our specific knowledge outcomes include: what rhetorical argumentation is as a field, and what it allows us to say about ourselves and our politico-cultural habitat; how we are shaped by our habitat, for good and for ill; what tools and strategies argumentation offers for resisting some of that shaping and for enhancing some of that shaping, for knowing what to resist and what to enhance.

Required Texts

Lee McIntyre. 2018. Post-Truth. MIT Press. This is not a textbook in the standard sense of providing definitions, methodologies, and theories. It has a little bit of each, but mostly we're using it just to get the lay of the land. Other readings will be assigned for details of argumentation theory, and lots of class room discussion will bring out methods and approaches.

Newspapers, videos, online fora. Read/view them frequently, on the lookout for arguments. There will be specifically assigned readings from this body of discourse, but always be on the lookout yourself. In the newspapers, for instance, read the editorial pages, op-ed pages, the columnists, and the letters especially; that's where people push their own standpoints and engage with the standpoints of others. With videos, look for opinion pieces and rants. But when you start looking for standpoints and their support systems, you'll see them in movie reviews, advertisements, even allegedly neutral news reports and sports articles and How I Met Your Mother episodes. Your weekly analyses will be drawn from these readings and viewings.

Recommended Text

Michael Gilbert. 2014. Arguing with People. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Formal Requirments

take home midterm (25 June – 4 July): 30%

weekly analyses: 55% (15% for completion; 40% for evaluation)

being argumentative:15%

Midterm: 25 June - 4 July

The take-home midterm will be an analysis of, and a counter-argument to, a text I will provide; you will be expected to use the terminology of the course knowledgeably, to analyze, to evaluate, and to counter the text, as well as to use proper citation style and properly reference any research.

Analyses: Weekly 10 May - 19 July

These are eight submissions, of 300-600 words, due each week (with a few exceptions; see the schedule), on Friday by 6:00 PM (we will discuss them in class the following week). Post them to the relevant discussion forum on Learn. The grading is a bit unconventional, so pay attention.

There are nine associated readings. You are required to write about eight of them. That means you can skip one of your choice (but it can't be the one due on 14 June). If you complete and submit eight, on time and to spec, you get a full 15% of your final grade. If you miss one, you will get 10%. If you miss two or more, you will get 0% (yep, zero).

They will all be evaluated, but only your top four grades will count towards your evaluation mark.

Each analysis will be a response to an argument—an appraisal of that argument and a counter-argument to it (when there are multiple arguments, as there often will be, counter argue against the one that seems most central). Please note that you must offer a counter argument whether you agree or disagree with the argument. Always choose the lead argument closest to the Thursday date of the week (e.g., for 10 May, choose the most recent Borowitz Report prior to 10 May (9 May or earlier); for 17 May, the lead editorial of The Guardian on 16 May, and so on.)

I anticipate a few glitches here, but calibrate the best you can. Check to see if anyone has already posted before you write up your own response, for instance, and follow their lead.

I expect you to read each other’s weekly posts, to comment on them if you choose, and to refer to them, as relevant, in your own posts.

Digital Bases of Operations

There is an English 409A LEARN page, where your weekly posts go, where your midterm will be submitted (as a PDF file, named with your last name and the assignment category—e.g., Harris-midterm.pdf), and where you will find assorted materials or administrivia related to the course.

Being Argumentative 

Come to class prepared, contribute to discussions, participate in the building and the development of the course. In particular, think reflectively about all the texts and readings, and think publicly. Make sure, for starters, to read all of the other analyses each week.

Ways to get a good grade: ask relevant questions, make salient observations, look for and point out connections in the material, argue about about the unbelievable pressure of having to be argumentative on demand, ...

Ways to get a mediocre grade: come to class, sit in your seat, say nothing, avoid eye contact with the professor.

Ways to get a poor grade:  stay away from class, make long irrelevant commentaries, treat your fellow students with extravagant disrespect, ...

By the way, I am almost impervious to arguments that third- and fourth-year university students, in a rhetoric programme, destined for careers involving the professional use of language, should not 'be required to talk in class'.

Academic Integrity

Members of the University of Waterloo community are expected to both follow and promote principles of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. That includes me as much as you, which is why I spell things out in this much detail in the syllabus. If you think any aspect of my conduct, including teaching, marking, and counseling, is unfairly detrimental to you or the class in general, you have not only the right but the obligation to let me, the English Department Chair, and/or the Dean of Arts, know about it, whomever you are most comfortable speaking with or you feel most appropriate for hearing your views and the reasons for those views.

The late policy is simple: don't be. The dropbox for your midterm is disabled as of midnight 4 July. If personal concerns, including health issues, prevent you from meeting a deadline, contact me ahead of time to make arrangements; if unforeseen circumstances prevent you from meeting a deadline, contact me when you are able and we can work something out. Please note that bad planning, conflict with assignments in other courses, and video-game addictions (to list a few attested reasons offered by students in the past) are not interpretable as personal concerns.

Discipline: You are expected to know what constitutes academic integrity [check the UW Office of Academic Integrity site] to avoid committing an academic offence, and to take responsibility for your actions. Ignorance is not a defence. For information on categories of offences and types of penalties, refer to Policy 71, Student Discipline.

Appeals: A decision made or penalty imposed under Policy 70 (Student Petitions and Grievances) (other than a petition) or Policy 71 (Student Discipline) may be appealed if there is a ground. A student who believes he/she has a ground for an appeal should refer to Policy 72 (Student Appeals).

Grievances: A student who believes that a decision affecting some aspect of his/her university life has been unfair or unreasonable may have grounds for initiating a grievance. Read Policy 70 (Student Petitions and Grievances), Section 4. When in doubt please be certain to contact the department’s administrative assistant who will provide further assistance.

Note for Students with Disabilities: The Office for Persons with Disabilities (OPD), located in Needles Hall, Room 1132, collaborates with all academic departments to arrange appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities without compromising the academic integrity of the curriculum. If you require academic accommodations to lessen the impact of your disability, please register with the OPD at the beginning of the term.

Schedule