Iran News ...


Desired Discussion Model

Source: 12Petals Media Group

For the model of testing ideas, an adversarial or a cooperative approach may be applied.

12Petals encourages cooperative (unadversarial) approach as more valuable to the creation of and the nourishing of a culture of tolerance and a culture of human rights, because this system seeks out solutions and subsequently sets much higher standards in the search of truth and cooperative settings for justice.

The adversarial pursuit of truth (knock-down arguments) style, while acknowledged as effective and valuable, mostly in court of law, but the preferred style among public forums is the cooperative approach.

The adversarial method is inherently contest oriented (which side wins), stressing on advancing one’s own position and to confront opposing views. Conversely, the cooperative approach focuses on the deeper sources of the problem and issues, explores the various possibilities for resolving them, examines the effects of alternatives, and seeks for common ground and common goals for all concerned.

12Petals recommends these following steps to be considered for evaluation of an argument (point of view):

Note: 12Petals realizes the presented salient steps below are abridged. Please do your due diligence research.

1. Consider that a “Point of View” or an “Argument” offers a conclusion and supports that conclusion with one or series of premises. Premises and conclusions are statements that claim to be true.

2. Establish the precise offered conclusion (consider exactly what it is claiming to prove).

3. Based on your established conclusion, go over all offered supporting premises.

4. Evaluate each premise separately and then assess their connections in regard to your established conclusion.

5. Are the premises actually true?

6. Do the premises adequately support or fail to support the conclusion?

7. If the premises are true, do they provide the right sort of support for the conclusion?

8. Are the premises relevant or irrelevant to the established conclusion?

9. Does the conclusion really “follow from” the premises?

10. Is the conclusion true or false?

11. Then, offer your understanding of conclusion, provide favorable or counter arguments on each supporting premises and their connections.

12. Based on your finding of premises and conclusion being true or false and whether or not the premises fail or support its conclusion, assess the argument or point of view as:

A) "Valid" or "Invalid" -  Do the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of its conclusion? And, "Sound" or "Unsound" - Are valid premises also offer a well connection to conclusion? This applies to win or lose with no middle ground arguments.


B) "Strong" or "Weak" -  Are the premises that claim to be true offer strong support for conclusion? And, "Cogent" or "Not Cogent" - Do the true premises also offer strong connection with conclusion? This applies to claim arguments with large area of grey.

13. If you are uncertain or puzzled, a great way to help clarify the issues is to inquire from the presenter for clarification and possible explanation in thought process.

Majid Baradar

Waller, Bruce N. “Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict" - 5th ed. Pearson Education Inc.: New Jersey, 2005

Persian version of this culture of human rights and responsibilities advocacy project can be viewed here
الگویی دلخواه برای گفت و شنود
برگردان پارسی این پروژه ترویجی و تشویقی حقوق بشر را از طریق این لینک میتوانید مشاهده نمائید:

Please also see the 12Petals' Advocacy Project, "Dialogue vs. Debate & Culture of Human Rights".
 گفت و شنود شیوه ایده آل ترویج و تشویق فرهنگ حقوق بشر میباشد. 

12Petals Media Group
Advocating a Culture of Human Rights & Responsibilities

Facebook | Twitter


... Payvand News - 10/30/14 ... --

comments powered by Disqus

Home | ArchiveContact | About |  Web Sites | Bookstore | Persian Calendar | twitter | facebook | RSS Feed

© Copyright 2014 NetNative (All Rights Reserved)