Walton came up with a distinct philosophical theory of reasonable argumentation fabricated around some practical examples, aimed at assisting people to recognize, carry out an analysis, and weigh arguments in a critical manner, so as to come to a consensus. This paper is a reflection of how my approach towards arguments changes, as a result of carefully reading Walton’s Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction.
Secondly, one should be in a position to inaugurate the party who originally made the assertion, and who is, therefore, accountable for providing confirmation as to why his/ her situation qualifies approval. Normally, when people are involved in an argument, what matters is how the argument ends and less effort is made to know the starter of it (Hunter and P. Besnard). Knowing the claimant helps a great deal in determining how the argument is concluded. There is a high probability that the initiator of the argument is the one on the wrong side.
Thirdly, the party to whom the claim is made against should be given enough time to give proof, that the claim might be false. To come to a conclusive conclusion, the opponent must be allowed to provide binding, complete, and convincing counter arguments, devoid of any flaws, and not easily criticized (Cox and Charles Arthur Willard).
For both parties to conclude on the same level, one must attempt to recognize faulty perceptive in the challenger's dispute, to attack the motives/principles of the dispute, to offer counterexamples if conceivable, to identify any misconceptions, and to display why a binding conclusion cannot be derived from the explanations delivered for his/her argument.
Works Cited
Cox, J. Robert and Charles Arthur Willard. Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Liverpool: Liverpool Inc Press, 2001. Print.
Hunter and P. Besnard. Elements of Argumentation. Cambridge MA, USA: MIT Press, 2008. Print.
Walton, D., C. Reed and F. Macagno. Argumentation Schemes. . Cambridge, UK,: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print.
