| Mode | Duration: 6 classes of 2 and a half hours. |
| Online or in-person, on the indicated dates. Or taken in closed groups within the company or organization. | |
| Upcoming start dates | Coursed |
STUDY PLAN
This course refers to one of the most important aspects of human communication, and it is also one of the least studied aspects today, yet it holds an essential weight and value within the professionalism of communication. It is so important that it becomes decisive in a debate or exchange of opinions, especially when it comes to the conviction and power of the content of communication.
Communication is notably enriched when those involved have the ability to construct logical and convincing arguments, and in turn, analyze the arguments they receive and have the capacity to dismantle those whose content is untrue or simply non-genuine resources.
As is known, participating in and even winning an argument is not the same as being right, nor is losing synonymous with being wrong. Very often, the person who manages to prevail in a debate is simply the most skilled, the most experienced, or the one with the most overwhelming personality (sometimes also the least scrupulous).
We have all experienced the frustration of realizing, several hours later, the argument that would have definitively settled the issue. But by then, the idea is of no use, because the discussion has already ended. This knowledge, now considered superior within communication, proves to be extremely useful for all those who need to convince or persuade others of ideas, objects, or defend certain positions.
Work Plan | Focus of Each Class
Through six classes, we aim to strengthen and develop the discursive and critical reasoning skills necessary for professional practice.
To this end, tools developed within the theory of argumentation are provided, complemented with contributions from the theory of argumentation to analyze and evaluate argumentative discourse.
Upon completion of the course, the student is expected to be able to:
- Analyze an argumentative discourse, supported by concepts, rules, and principles from the theory of argumentation. Analyzing such a discourse means identifying all the relevant elements of the discourse that are necessary for later evaluation: viewpoints and explicit and implicit premises, types of argumentative schemes underlying the argumentation, and the structure through which the arguments presented are related to each other.
- Evaluate an argumentative discourse and adequately justify the proposed evaluation. To evaluate means to judge whether an argumentative discourse meets the criteria of a specific model of reasonability. Justifying an evaluation involves demonstrating not only the failure to meet a normative criterion but also the rationale and/or convenience of using the model of reasonability to which the criterion belongs. For these purposes, various models of reasonability developed in the theory of argumentation are reviewed. Special emphasis is placed on the dialectical model (also known as “critical”), which proposes criteria of reasonability applicable not only at the inferential level but also at the dialogical level.
- Analyze and evaluate an argumentative discourse. Since many contexts have specific rationality requirements, it is necessary to complement the general tools of analysis and evaluation with notions, rules, and principles provided by the theory of argumentation.
LESSON PLAN
Introduction:
Concept of Argumentation – What is an argument?
The goal: To persuade.
The proposition.
Premises and conclusions.
Argumentation and demonstration.
When is it possible to argue?
The existence of disagreements.
The need for a shared language.
Establishing common rules.
Disagreements that arise when arguing:
Words and facts: The problems with words.
Combating the problems with words.
Five rules for crafting definitions.
The problem of handling practical evidence.
The problem of soundness.
The problem of relevance.
The problem of interpretation.
Problems that arise when we argue:
Problems with value judgments.
Choosing criteria.
Problems of relevance and consistency.
Rules that govern deductive thinking.
Truth, validity, and correctness.
Rules that govern inductive thinking.
Analysis of Fallacies:
Formal fallacies.
Informal fallacies.
Informal fallacies specific to inductive reasoning.
Weapons, strategies, and tricks in debate:
Four basic weapons of combat.
Legitimate and illegitimate strategies.
Tricks for “dirty play.”
Ethics of Argumentation:
Meaning and value of winning a debate.
Why an ethics of argumentation?
Some basic principles.
Principle of recognizing the explicit.
Principle of interpretive charity.
Principle of parsimony.
Principle of respect for reality.
Principle of depersonalization.
Principle of responsibility.
Rules for evaluating and constructing arguments:
Rules for evaluating others’ arguments.
Rules for constructing our own arguments.
General practical exercises.
¿Who is it aimed at?
Anyone who needs to improve their personal or professional communication. People who have to make general public presentations, presentations of relationships, ideas, positions, legal arguments, presentations in labor relations, sales relationships, communication and motivation for staff, project presentations, covering a broad spectrum that includes civil society leaders, teachers and speakers, salespeople, and personnel who manage human capital.
Additional tools:
Each course is composed of concrete tools that participants will find applicable to their reality from the very beginning.
We provide a series of deepening resources (TED Talks, articles, work sheets, and videos) so that participants can expand their resource base on each topic addressed in the classes.