|12/2/2023 5:21:05 PM||
||New Course (First Version)
|Discipline and Nbr:
Introduction to Argumentation
|Units||Course Hours per Week|| ||Nbr of Weeks||Course Hours Total
|Maximum||3.00||Lecture Scheduled||3.00||17 max.||Lecture Scheduled||51.00
|Minimum||3.00||Lab Scheduled||0||3 min.||Lab Scheduled||0
| ||Contact DHR||0|| ||Contact DHR||0
| ||Contact Total||3.00|| ||Contact Total||51.00
| ||Non-contact DHR||0|| ||Non-contact DHR Total||0
Title 5 Category:
AA Degree Applicable
Grade or P/NP
00 - Two Repeats if Grade was D, F, NC, or NP
Also Listed As:
| ||Total Out of Class Hours: 102.00||Total Student Learning Hours: 153.00||
Through in-class debates on contemporary issues, the course teaches how to make a claim and how to support it, how to recognize invalid arguments and how to refute them, how to reason and speak clearly. These techniques are useful in both formal and informal situations.
Eligibility for ENGL 1A.
Limits on Enrollment:
Schedule of Classes Information
Course uses in-class debates to teach argumentation & critical thinking.
(Grade or P/NP)
Recommended:Eligibility for ENGL 1A.
Limits on Enrollment:
Repeatability:00 - Two Repeats if Grade was D, F, NC, or NP
ARTICULATION, MAJOR, and CERTIFICATION INFORMATION
Certificate Applicable Course
Outcomes and Objectives:
At the conclusion of this course, the student should be able to:
|Associate Degree:||Effective:||Fall 1981||Inactive:||
| Area:||B||Communication and Analytical Thinking
|CSU GE:||Transfer Area|| ||Effective:||Inactive:
| ||A3||Critical Thinking||Fall 1981||
|IGETC:||Transfer Area|| ||Effective:||Inactive:
|CSU Transfer:||Transferable||Effective:||Fall 1981||Inactive:||
|UC Transfer:||Transferable||Effective:||Fall 1981||Inactive:||
| CID Descriptor: COMM 120|| Argumentation or Argumentation and Debate|| SRJC Equivalent Course(s): COMM9 OR COMM3
After completion of the course, students should be able to:
1. differentiate between statements which give reasons, (and are there
fore technically arguments), and unsupported claims (which techni-
cally are not arguments).
2. differentiate between claims and supporting premises.
3. diagram an enthymeme and identify the suppressed premise.
4. compose and classify debatable propositions of fact, value, and
5. convert debatable claims to formal resolutions.
6. "parcel" resolutions (that is, identify key terms in a resolution,
state alternative definitions, and select the most appropriate
definition for purposes of debate.)
7. Present a speech supporting or opposing a resolution in a parlia-
mentary format debate.
8. State, define, and apply the appropriate prima facie case elements
for each of the three classes of propositions.
9. Research, prepare and present constructive and rebuttal speeches
on support of or opposition to a formal debate resolution in both
Lincoln-Douglas and Oxford formats. This includes:
A. identification of the issues necessary to construct a prima
B. locating, selecting,and presenting relevant evidence for each
prima facie issue
C. if in opposition to the resolution (the negative) appropriate
clash with the affirmative case and presentation of relavant
10. critique a debate, either oral or written, and provide a ballot
stating reasons for a decision in accordance with accepted
"reasonable person" standards and assessment of appropriate prima
facie and off-case issues.
11. score at least 60% on an objective examination covering argumenta-
theory and including the identification of logical fallacies.
Topics and Scope
I. Introduction to the Course
The role of critical thinking in life, politics, professions, and
Grading standards, assignments, and expectations
Reading schedule for the textbook
Expectation that students will read the newspaper for current events
II. The Nature of Argumentation: from "arguing" to debating
The meaning of argumentation
The basic unit of rhetorical argument: the enthymeme
The relationship of debate to argumentation
The world of debate
III.The "reasonable person" model: addressing our rational selves.
Defining the reasonable person
Why the reasonable person?
The parties to a debate
The role of debate in problem solving
the ethics of debate
IV. The Claim Tree: from making claims to debatable claims
the concept of a claim
The principle of clarity
how language means
clarity by definition
clarity by description
sources of definitions
purposes of authoritative definitions
The need for jurisdiction
The need for controversy
The classification of debatable claims
The three classes of debatable claims
the proposition of fact
the proposition of value
the proposition of policy
wording the proposition
V. The Resolution: the focus of a debate
VI. The analysis of Resolutions
VII. The Process of Debate: preparation and procedure
(First classroom debates are held)
VIII.Debating Resolutions of Fact
IX. Debating Resolutions of Value
X. Debating Resolutions of Policy
(Second series of classroom debates are held)
XI. The structure of arguments in support of claims (includes the Toulmin
model of arguement)
XII. The role of research in the support of claims
XIII.The examination of warrants: relevance, logic and fallacies
The concept of relevance
Formal logic and the syllogism
The Analysis of Evidence
The need for evidence
Tests of evidence
The herarchy of evidence
XIV. Judgment: has the resolution been proven?
(Third series of classroom debates are held)
XV. Assessment of third series of debates and review for final examina-
1. Each student is to compose and diagram an enthymeme and submit the
diagram to the instructor.
2. Each student is to compose three "debatable claims". The student is
to defend the debatable claims composed by demonstrating in class that
the necessary requirements of clarity, jurisdiction and controversy
are present. Each student is placed under Socratic examination by the
3. Each student is to convert the debatable claims into formal resolu-
tions, and under Socratic examination by the instructor demonstrate
that presumption, burden of proof and standard of proof have been
4. The class researches, prepares, and conducts a parliamentary style
debate on a topic assigned by the instructor.
5. Each student researches, prepares and engages in a one-on-one
"Lincoln-Douglas" format debate with another member of the class on an
assigned or chosen resolution.
6. Each student takes a combination objective/essay mid-term examination
on textbook chapters and relavant current events.
7. Each student researches, prepares and engages in a two-ontwo- "Oxford"
format debate with other students from the class.
8. Each student takes a combination objective/essay final examination
lasting three hours on textbook chapters and relevant current events.
9. In addition tothe above, students have a option of observing or en-
gaging in inter-collegiate or community debates for extra-credit.
Methods of Evaluation/Basis of Grade.
Representative Textbooks and Materials:
|Writing: Assessment tools that demonstrate writing skill and/or require students to select, organize and explain ideas in writing.||Writing
0 - 0%
|This is a degree applicable course but assessment tools based on writing are not included because skill demonstrations are more appropriate for this course.
|Problem solving: Assessment tools, other than exams, that demonstrate competence in computational or non-computational problem solving skills.||Problem Solving
0 - 0%
|Skill Demonstrations: All skill-based and physical demonstrations used for assessment purposes including skill performance exams.||Skill Demonstrations
50 - 66%
|Exams: All forms of formal testing, other than skill performance exams.||Exams
10 - 17%
|Other: Includes any assessment tools that do not logically fit into the above categories.||Other Category
0 - 0%
Perella, Jack. The Debate Method of Critical Thinking
Freely, Austin J. Argumentation and Debate
Church, Russell T., and Charles Wilbanks. Values and Policies in