Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

Ai And Advocacy: Maximizing Potential, Minimizing Risk, Matthew Salzano, Nicholas Fung, Ada Lin, Sofia Marchetta, Faith Colombo, Kaylah Davis, John Flynn, Carlos Fuentes, Fion Li, Malar Paavi Muthukumaran, Angelica Paramoshin, Chrisanne Pearce, Vianney Ramos, Charles St. Hilaire, Xi Zheng, Wei Zhuang

School of Communication and Journalism Faculty Publications

New Generative AI tools are revolutionizing writing and communication. This report focuses on AI and advocacy, the act of influencing public policy and resource allocation decisions within political, economic, and social systems and institutions. This report identifies three major opportunities and accompanying risks, plus one strong recommendation for advocates considering using AI. We argue that AI can be useful for advocates, but they must be careful to center human judgment and avoid risks that could distract from their important work or even contribute to societal harms.

Just Trust Me (2023-2024), Gabrielle Wall

Argument

The argument essay, “Just Trust Me,” covers a range of sources, motives, and technologies involved in the spread of disinformation. From Google search results to AI generated content and deep fakes, Wall ultimately argues for regulation of AI and intervention from government organizations rather than banning information. Her argument focuses on the consequences, such as voting or health decisions that can stem from unregulated practices of disinformation.

The Great Unknown: Unlimited Artificial Intelligence (2023-2024), Kathryn O'Brien

Argument

O’Brien begins this argument essay with the following reminder that “We use A.I. every day without even realizing. There are so many different algorithms built into every single app we use, as well as search engines like Google.” She goes on to consider the use of Artificial Intelligence in algorithms, online information availability, healthcare, and the arts. Throughout the use of examples within these various contexts, O’Brien interrogates the need for limits to AI in order to counter bias, limit the prevalence of hate speech, and ultimately preserve our humanity.

Procédés Argumentatifs Dans Le Débat D'Entre Deux Tours De L'Élection Présidentielle Ivoirienne, Nanourougo Coulibaly

Dirassat

Cote d’Ivoire has experienced, Thursday, Nov. 25, 20 I0, the first adversarial debate in its history between the two finalists in the presidential election. This discursive confrontation is therefore a new element in the political landscape of Cote d'Ivoire. In addition, it is important to note that this debate takes place in a context overheated with sporadic clashes between the supporters of Laurent Gbagbo, the outgoing President, supported by the FPI (lvorian Popular Front) and a coalition of parties united in the LMP (The Presidential Majority) and those of Alassane Ouattara, his challenger supported by another political coalition called RHDP …

Evidence In Health Controversies, Sally Jackson

OSSA Conference Archive

Health controversies involve the now-familiar complexities of polylogue: multiple positions, multiple players, and multiple places. A vexing issue that cuts across many health topics is what counts as evidence. Several different expert fields may each try to enforce their own evidence standards, and lay participants (whose well-being depends on any expert consensus that may form) often bring their own distinctive forms of evidence. This presentation examines disagreements over evidence within a series of case studies.

Commentary On: Jianfeng Wang’S “Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity", Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

In this cogent paper, Wang urges argumentation theorists to pay attention to the myriad things that are happening whenever someone makes an argument. To do this he updates and extends the classical rhetorical cannon of style. He documents the importance of argumentative style through a case study of deep disagreement, showing how one arguer’s choices served to reconstruct an otherwise abusive situation. I urge him to continue the project by providing an equally cogent account of explaining why an arguer’s stylistic choices lead to the desired audience’s response.

Housing First To Address Homelessness (2019-2020), Caitlyn Gonzalez

Argument

In this student example we can see a clear stance is taken by Gonzales as she argues that vacant homes should be used to house the homeless based on a “Housing First” program model. Her argument draws on examples, narrative, and statistics to persuade the reader as to why this model of government and not-for-profit intervention would help homeless individuals and families recover financial and social stability.

Government Funding For The Arts (2019-2020), Michael Kravchenko

Argument

In this example of an argument, Kravchenko makes the case for the need for continued funding for arts education. He points out the benefits of a funded arts education as increasing creativity, child development, and future career opportunities.

The Case For Less Immigration Restrictions In The United States (2019-2020), Elle O’Leary Kelleher

Argument

In this example of an argument, Kelleher explores how the issue of immigration has been taken up in politics and policy, but rests on many misperceptions, including the negative portrayal of immigrants in popular culture ranging from 1931 to 2013. Kelleher argues for a loosening of immigration restrictions based on benefits to the United States and based on a historical sense of “American values.”

Argument Pedagogy For Everyday Life, Jeffrey P. Mehltretter Drury, Nicholas S. Paliewicz, Sara A. Mehltretter Drury

Journal of Communication Pedagogy

This article assists argumentation and debate instructors in developing courses that provide coverage of foundational concepts while reflecting their own interests. Courses in argumentation and debate also offer instructors an opportunity to teach through applied engagement with contemporary events. We encourage instructors to reflect on the various contexts of argumentation and debate as well as challenging questions concerning the role of technology in the classroom, the conflict between normative and descriptive examples of argumentation, how much to emphasize the role of argumentation and debate in societal change, and the connections between argumentation and deliberation.

The Logical Fallacies In Political Discourse, Zilin Cidre Zhou

Summer Research Program

I examined the use of logical fallacies in political discourse. Logical fallacies are fraudulent tricks people use in their argument to make it sound more credible while what they really do is to fool the audience. Out of more than 300 kinds of fallacies, I focused on 18 common ones by analyzing their use in debates about political issues. During conducting my research, I noted that being aware of my mental state is very important if I want to accurately detect the fallacies. Furthermore, while watching two sides debating, being impartial is as significant as staying calm. I also need …

Somos España: Building A New Spanish Identity, Lakelyn Taylor

Honors Theses

Establishing an identity is inherent to all individuals and communities. Sometimes creating an identity must be taken a step further by reconstructing a pre-existing identity in exchange for a more favorable one. Spain is currently undergoing a process to reconstruct part of their identity from being a nation with a lazy culture to one that is more progressive. Some Spanish rhetoricians perceive the best way to change Spain’s identity is to eliminate the tradition of siesta time. This study examines the rhetoric that agents utilize in order to create an audience that will help to rhetorically construct Spain’s new identity. …

What's More Important: Design Or Content? An Analysis Of The Impact Of Website Design, Argument Quality, And Need For Cognition On Information Assessment, Luke David Salomone

Scholar Week 2016 - present

Author Abstract:

When evaluating information online or offline, two important aspects are considered by readers: the credibility of the source and the quality of the argument. It is well known that strong arguments are more persuasive than weak arguments of the same length (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984), and recent research has shown that in an online environment source credibility is determined by the reader in part by the design aspects of website (Lowry et al., 2013). Using a 2 (website quality: good vs bad) x 2 (argument quality: strong vs weak) ANCOVA with need for cognition (NFC) and disposition to …

Demonstrating Objectivity In Controversial Science Communication: A Case Study Of Gmo Scientist Kevin Folta, Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

Scientists can find it difficult to be seen as objective within the chaos of a civic controversy. This paper gives a normative pragmatic account of the strategy one GMO scientist used to demonstrate his trustworthiness. Kevin Folta made his talk expensive by undertaking to answer all questions, and carried out this responsibility by acting as if every comment addressed to him—even the most hostile—was in fact a question in good faith. This presumption of audience good faith gave in turn his audience good reason to presume his good faith, and a situation of reciprocal distrust was transformed into one with …

Arguing With God: An Honest Conversation, Barry Fike

Barry D. Fike

For the Jew, “I beg to differ” has been an enduring tactic of achieving and affirming identity. The Jew had addressed the same caveat to God—not in self-contradiction, but in dialectic aiming at attainment of fuller realization of who he is, as Jew and as human being. In asking about God, we examine our own selves: whether we are sensitive to the grandeur and supremacy of what we ask about, whether we are wholeheartedly concerned with what we ask about. Unless we are involved, we fail to sense the issue.

Argument Construction, Argument Evaluation, And Decision-Making: A Content Analysis Of Argumentation And Debate Textbooks, Neil Stuart Butt

Wayne State University Dissertations

Critical thinking abilities, especially the advanced critical thinking abilities required for decision-making, are important to both individuals and democratic policy making processes. Previous studies have indicated that argumentation and debate instruction can improve critical thinking abilities, but there are reasons to believe that current approaches are not as effective at developing decision-making ability as they could be, in part because they focus too heavily on argument construction, rather than argument evaluation and decision-making. In order to test which approaches to teaching argumentation and debate best encourage decision-making abilities, researchers need to know which elements are included in current argumentation and …

Linking Identity And Dialect Through Stancetaking, Barbara Johnstone

Barbara Johnstone

No abstract provided.

Reasons For Reason-Giving In A Public-Opinion Survey, Martha S. Cheng, Barbara Johnstone

Barbara Johnstone

No abstract provided.

Wigmore's Chart, Jean Goodwin

Jean Goodwin

A generation before Beardsley, legal scholar John Henry Wigmore invented a scheme for representing arguments in a tree diagram, aimed to help advocates analyze the proof of facts at trial. In this essay, I describe Wigmore's "Chart Method" and trace its origin and influence. Wigmore, I argue, contributes to contemporary theory in two ways. His rhetorical approach to diagramming provides a novel perspective on problems about the theory of reasoning, premise adequacy, and dialectical obligations. Further, he advances a novel solution to the problem of assessing argument quality by representing the strength of argument in meeting objections.