This is a case of Juli and Steve and their positions on the issue whether the release or publication of certain works of art, which in their case was the Laramie Project should be regulated in an event that not doing so creates the possibility of igniting public unrest or compromising the community of individuals who are not involved in the dispute. In the case, Steve argues that the public release of the Laramie Project should be cancelled and be ultimately banned from the campus. Juli, on the other hand argues that there is nothing wrong with publicly releasing or staging an artwork such as the Laramie Project because controlling its release would be an outright violation of one’s freedom of speech. As with any other argument, regardless of the issue being argued, the argument between Steve and Juli can be dissected into four parts: Evidence, Claim, Reasoning, and the Level of Dispute. IN Steve and Juli’s case, the evidence can be anything that either Juli or Steve could use to support their arguments; the claim is basically the main idea they are trying to argue about and support using their evidences; reasoning is the part that enables the two opposing parties in the argument to connect their differences and make adjustments and compromises perhaps upon discovering that the arguer or the recipient of the argument’s statements and evidences make perfect sense; lastly, the level of dispute serves as an imaginary line that divides the statements and or ideas either Steve or Juli may perceive into acceptable and non-acceptable. Any idea or statement that falls below the level of dispute are acceptable; any idea or statement that falls above that level of dispute would most likely be unacceptable. Steve claims that an artistic expression should not be exempted from censorship any more than any other kind of speech based on the evidence that people have threatened to protest the play, campus police are worried about violence and vandalism, excessively argumentative art works and or plays are similar to hate speeches that may have harmful consequences; and on the reasoning that every person’s rights are as important as that of other people, no one has the right to put any other person at risk, and that if freedom (in this case, freedom of speech) carries the potential of hurting others, they should be limited. Juli, on the other hand, opposes such claim stating that freedom of speech should be withheld at all costs.
Conclusions
The Co-Orientational approach in making arguments can be an effective tool in analyzing a recipient or an arguer’s statements, evidences, claims, and logic. It certainly is not a one-sided approach as it takes into consideration both the claims, evidences, and reasonability of both the arguer and the recipient.
In general, there are three complementary perspectives in argumentation: the logical perspective which views an argument as a set of premises defined by a conclusion; the dialectical perspective which describes argumentation as a process of discovering issues, generating alternatives, and establishing standards for judgment, and withholding a decision until all alternatives have been stated and tested; and the rhetorical perspective which describes how argumentation can be used as a tool to influence.
In the Co-Orientational Approach, the timing, the target audience, and the content, are very important because these three are the factors that will determine whether the level of dispute will rise (which is a positive thing because this would mean that the arguer has successfully influenced the audience) or fall (meaning, the arguer has lost the interest of or the credibility needed to sway the audience in his favor).
