In this paper I will be discussing two arguments models; one is from a philosopher‘s view and the other is from a psychologist’s view. I will explain how and why these models are important. I will also discuss my understanding of the thinking and justification of each model of argument by compare and contrasting the two arguments. In the philosopher’s view: The Toulmin Model has four parts to an argument: the first is “the claim”, which is your thesis or the purpose of what you are disputing. The second is “the grounds”; which is leaving no uncertainty to the meaning and reasoning of your claim. The third is “the warrant”, which ties the purpose of the claim and the grounds together. Finally “the backing” which is theory of reasoning that may be needed to influence the audience if the warrant is not accepted. The Toulmin method is an outline of how to state your arguments in more of an analytical way. It allows you to break down the argument in different part so we can make a conclusion on how well the different part work together, as well as an effective way to get to the how and the why.
In the Psychologist’s view: Rogerian Argument claims you would first state the problem, and give the opponent’s position, while validating whatever you find in the challenger’s position. Roger explains how doing all the steps first and then stating last what your position would be and how it would improve the opposing position. By using this type of strategy, you would find a common ground with your challenger and your own position may be more accepting to your claim, as well as having the challenger listen to your point of view, with a possibility of change or compromise. In the Toulmin method I find it to be effective way to state your argument because you have an outline to show your position on the claim. The Toulmin method also helps improve on analyzing an argument, in which can be used in the really world. The Toulmin method is how most would argue with another person about a real things or situation. If you chose to approach your argument like Toulmin model compare to Rogerian argument you may find that most of reader and/or the challenger will put up their defense up before actually taking into mind what the outcome maybe.
The consequence may end up that they are not listening to your logic of the argument. In the Rogerian Argument proposes you to state your challenger position and validate what the challenger is saying. I find it not to be as structured compared to Toulmin method, but in the other hand using Rogerain Argument you are working together to find a solution together rather than whose position is wrong or right. It is opening a common ground for understanding and compromising the giving situation. If you choose to use the Rogerian Argument you are more likely negotiating with your audience or the opponent, rather than fight with them to pick your way. This I find useful is you are trying to work out a solution to a problem at work or at home. Not so much when you are trying to make change in a bigger picture aspect. For example, if you are trying to change a law, like to oppose the death penalty, I would suggest by having more of structure argument like Toulmin would be beneficial. I personally would not choose to compromise or negotiate a change like the death penalty by picking Rogerian Argument.
If I had to choose between the Rogerian Argument and the Toulmin model to analyze an argument, I would have chosen Toulmin. I find the Toulmin would help me examine the argument. The Toulmin method would allow me to ask the how and the why. It would also allow me to think about what the rebuttals may be and how to go about on answering them. It would help me with the critical thinking of the subject and have a better preparation for my stand on the argument. I personally like the approach of the psychologist’s view. I find it to be less stressful and open minded on influencing your audience. It is more of a join effort, instead of a debate on the change or subject. I feel if we are open to compromise; the further we would get in this society with change we would like to make. In all, I believe both methods are great strategies to use.