• What is argumentation?
• Characteristics of the argumentation
• Structure of the argumentation
• Types of arguments
• Examples of argumentation

We explain what an argumentation is, its types, structure and other characteristics. Also, examples from various fields.

The argumentation is a common exercise of confrontation of ideas.

What is argumentation?

Argument is a discursive practice whose purpose is to defend a position or an opinion and dissuade the other from their own. For this he uses reasonings (arguments) logical, conscious, demonstrable.

It is a common exercise in areas of confrontation of ideas, such as national parliaments, public debates or negotiations. It is considered healthy for coexistence democratic and for the plurality of opinions, since it allows the passionate contrast of ideas, instead of resorting to the violence.

At the same time, it is called argumentation (or Theory of argumentation) to the study of arguments, hand in hand with logic, the philosophy and the oratory, as well as the argumentative texts what a person can produce, in which he makes use of his expressive abilities and his reasoning to defend or attack certain ideas.

The study of argumentation comes from ancient times, when many schools of philosophy studied the art of persuasion. Of particular importance were the Sophists of classical Greece, who flourished during democratic Athens in the 5th century BC. C., as well as the later philosophers Plato (c. 427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC), who widely cultivated the art of argumentation.

Characteristics of the argumentation

In general terms, all argumentation exercises meet the following characteristics:

• It aims to convince, to modify the opposite point of view, that is, to persuasion.
• It is not simply about giving an opinion, but about supporting opinions in a verifiable way.
• It is based on the construction and handling of arguments. It uses premises for this, data and information to logically support a point of view.
• Appeal to reason and not emotions.

Structure of the argumentation

The argumentation does not consist of the free handling of the premises, but it sticks to certain structures to be effective. Thus, it must consist of:

• A thesis to defend, that is, in favor of which it is argued.
• A set of premises from which the thesis.
• An argument that links the premises with the thesis to be demonstrated.

The premises take the form of a statement, from which a conclusion Through logical reasoning, which may or may not be considered valid. According to Christian Plantin in The argumentation , the following scheme describes an argumentative structure:

Data → Proposal
(minor premise) (conclusion)

"Today is Monday" "Today there are classes"

Passage law
(more general premise)

"Week starts on Monday"

East scheme It is similar to the one proposed by Aristotle to understand the syllogism, in which a major and minor premise are identified, which lead to an appropriate conclusion.

In this case, the argument also consists of a minor premise (a fact that is had in advance) and a Law of passage (also called common place or topoi) which is a more general premise, similar to Aristotle's major premise. From the articulation of the two, a logical proposal or conclusion can be obtained.

This, however, has to do with the mental process of formulating an argument. When constructing argumentative texts, there is usually no fixed or due structure to adhere to, but there is a relative Liberty at the time of raising the information. In any case, certain logical rules apply:

• The premises are usually given before the conclusion.
• The premises require a demonstration, either in examples or hypothetical statements or references to authority cases.
• The validity of the arguments must be demonstrated in the text same.
• The closing of the text is usually the conclusion reached after going through the arguments.

Types of arguments

The arguments can be classified according to different criteria, such as:

• According to your persuasiveness. That is, depending on how much they convince the other, we can speak of weak arguments (easy to refute), solid arguments (difficult to refute) or irrefutable arguments (impossible to refute).
• According to its formal validity. In other words, depending on whether or not they adapt to a rigorous logic model, we can differentiate between valid and invalid arguments.
• According to its content. That is, according to the type of arguments they propose, we can distinguish between various trends, framed in categories of social and cultural type that may vary, but which are broadly speaking:
  • Topic of existence. Those present things are always preferred to those that do not exist. For example: "I also love the cinema, but today there is no show."
  • Utility topic. What is useful and productive is always preferred to what is useless or idle. For example: "Do not continue wasting time with that, if you are not going to achieve it."
  • Topic of the morality. That which adheres to the traditional ideas of right and wrong is preferable to that which is not. For example: "A young lady in your house shouldn't be walking down the street so late."
  • Topic of the quantity. That which is more abundant is preferable to the scarce. For example: “Better take the blue dress, that color it is being used a lot ”.
  • Quality topic. That which is valued as being of better quality is always preferable to the other. For example: "I prefer to buy only one pants, but one that is a good brand."

Examples of argumentation

Examples of the use of argumentation are:

• A parliamentary debate in which deputies or senators participate.
• An academic thesis defense, in which the thesis must convince the jury of the worth of their work.
• A marital discussion in which two child-rearing models must fit into one.
• An electoral advertisement in which the vote is advocated for one political project and not another.