409A F21 Harris

Argumentation

Learning to argue is part of learning how to get along with people. One does not study the

'nature of [people]'; one studies individual people and learns the many ways of living with them, arguments included. One learns how to adapt one's persuasion to the idiosyncrasies

of the person one confronts rather than to an abstract creature 'rational [person]'. There is no distinction between logic and rhetoric.

— Paul K. Feyerabend

English 409A

Tuesday / Thursday, 11:30-1:00, EV3 4408 / zoom 892 443 2274 / sbiq9b

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

Drop-in Student Hours: Wednesday, 9:30-10:30, Virtual Classroom #UWEng409AF21

Covidification clause

Most of us are now in our fourth consecutive term of anxiety, caution, and the overall brutal weariness brought on by the disease, the complex and contradictory regulations and guidelines that it has spawned, and the confusing behaviour of many of our fellow citizens in response to the disease and the regulations. We will no doubt encounter some of the same stresses in this term and in this course; maybe some new ones too. I will do my best to manage them and to help you manage them. Please do your best, as well, to manage the pressures and to help each other manage them. The openning plan is to meet half the time in person, half the time virtually, but we may have to go fully remote at a moment's notice. 

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.

I'll tell you a little secret

Right now, right here, you're engaging in argumentation. Me too. The question is, how well are we doing it?

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 by thinking 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 various scholars. 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 and therefore 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 or enhancing some of that shaping, for knowing what to resist and what to enhance.

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 and administrivia related to the course.

Requirements

take home midterm (4 - 11 November)       35%

weekly analyses (group)                      40%

being argumentative                   25% (10% + 15%)

Readings

There is a series of assigned readings from online sources, both in the theory & methodology of argument analysis and as object texts for analysis. 

Theory and methodology readings should be completed before the Tuesday class that week.

Recommended text

Coöperation may not always beget coöperation, but antagonism always begets antagonism.

— Michael Gilbert

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

I haven't ordered it for the bookstore, but it is on (alas, hardcopy only) reserve and copies can be easily and cheaply found through used-book sites like Alibris and Abebooks; even, if you want to support more spacecowboy hijinx, on Amazon. I have also asked the library to seek a digital copy.

Analyses : weekly 16 september - 25 november

I move more freely toward an object in proportion to the number of reasons which compel me.

—René Descartes

You are members of argumentation-analysis circles. Each circle needs to post weekly analyses. You can work out the division of labour any way you like, though I recommend you have an editor each week (rotating or continuous) who is responsible for ensuring that week's post is on-time and to-spec. The other members of the circle might then generate the content. Each person might write a couple of entire posts, for instance, or every person might write a set number of words/week, or every person might have a dedicated section of the posting to complete (rotating or continuous); whatever.

These are eight submissions, of 400-600 (±10%) words, due weekly, on Friday by 6:00 PM. Post them to the relevant discussion forum on Learn. 

There are nine associated texts. You are required to analyze eight of them. That means you can skip one of your choice. But your circle must complete at least eight analyses for the members to get a grade for this component.

Each analysis will be a response to an argument—an appraisal of that argument (is it good or bad? why?) and a counter-argument to it. Please note that you must offer a counter argument whether you agree or disagree with the argument, so you may well end up arguing against the grain of your circle's majority beliefs. 

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

Rubric:

note: if not on time or not to spec, the grade is zero  identifying the standpoint, balance point, and primary reasons, 10 use of weekly vocabulary, 10 clarity & cogency of your standpoint, 10 clarity & cogency of analysis, 40

relevance & coherence of counter-argument, 20 grammar & style, 10

On time, I hope is straightforward. 

On spec means your circle's post meets all of the specifications--adheres to the word count, identifies a standpoint and its machinery, includes a counter-argument, and uses some the weekly vocabulary. 

The circles are named for critters I communed with the week before I designed the course, by the way. But you are free to change the names. Doesn't even have to be named for a critter. Just argue amongst yourselves and let me know the consensus.  

Midterm : 4 - 11 November

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. Effectively, these are individual versions, at greater length, of the circle analyses. 

Rubric:

identifying the standpoint, balance point, and primary reasons, 10 use of weekly vocabulary, 10 clarity & cogency of analysis, 40 clarity & cogency of your standpoint, 10 relevance & coherence of counter-argument, 20 grammar & style, 10

Being argumentative

In business he who hinders the common task is a bad partner, and the same is true in argument; for here, too, there is a common purpose, unless the parties are merely competing with each other.

— Aristotle of Leontini

There are two components here: a thread-count component, graded on a pay-as-you-play basis; and a community engagement component, graded on criteria of productive involvement. 

Thread-count component (10%). You need to contribute to at least twelve threads on the discussion boards, commenting on another circle's post, or answering queries on your own. They needn't be extensive (no more than asking a question or suggesting a resource if that's all you're up for), and excess prolixity is not a virtue. 

Note that these can be anonymous if you wish (I have access to the stats, so I will still know how many you contributed to). But anonymity is the worst possible excuse for sloppiness and unpleasantness. Disagree all you want. That's a good thing. But be kind and courteous.

If you contribute to twelve threads over the duration of the course, you will get the full 10/10. If you contribute ten or eleven, you get 5/10. Less than ten is 0/10.

Community engagement component (15%). Come to class prepared, contribute to discussions, participate in 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 analyses each week, from all of the AACs. 

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, ...  

By the way, I am mostly impervious to the view that third- and fourth-year university students, in a rhetoric programme, building toward careers involving the professional use of language, should not be required to participate in class. If you are genuinely unable speak in class or in online conferencing, we can explore other participation options, so that you and the class can benefit from the seminar format. Silence is not golden.

Academic Integrity

Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson

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 advising, 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: please don't be. If unforeseen circumstances prevent you from meeting a deadline, contact me when you are able

and we can work something out. My traditional policy on this is -10% per day late, excluding weekends, to a maximum of -50%. But these are especially rocky times and I am happy to discuss alternatives. Just do your best. 

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. Please don't cheat.

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/their 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 guidance.

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

Date	Analyses	Readings
09/09	the syllabus	the syllabus!
14/09	editorials	argumentation (Zarefsky, in Sloane)
16/09
21/09	editorials	rhetoric and argumentation (van Eemeren, in MacDonald)
23/09
28/09	Jane Elliot clip	inference (Farrell, in Sloane), logic (Levi, in Sloane)
30/09
05/10	TBA	figures of argument (Fahnestock, Rhetorical Style)
07/10
12/10	Reading week
14/10
19/10	TBA	bringing wreck (Henning)
21/10
26/10	TBA	visual argumentation (Roque)
28/10
02/11	where are we now?
04/11	Midterm
09/11
11/11	where are we now?
16/11	pick-your-own	persuasion in songs of protest (Nkoala)  Sisanda Nkoala guest appearance
18/11
23/11	pick-your-own	patterns of argument (Tindale)
25/11
30/11	pick-your-own	computer-based analysis (Visser & Lawrence) Jacky Visser and John Lawrence guest appearance
02/12
07/12	so long and thanks for all the fish