Classical

The classical model of argumentation is a framework for constructing persuasive

arguments. It has its roots in ancient Greece and Rome, where rhetoric was considered the art of

persuasion.

The classical argument is typically composed of five components, which are commonly

organized in the following order :

Exordium: The introduction, opening, or hook that grabs the audience's attention.

Narratio: The context or background of the topic, providing relevant information to understand

the argument.

Proposito: The statement of the issue or problem that the argument aims to address.

Confirmatio: The main body of the argument, where evidence and reasoning are presented to

support the thesis.

Peroratio: The conclusion, summarizing the main points and leaving a lasting impression on the

audience.

The classical model is still used today as a framework for constructing persuasive essays

and speeches. Overall, the classical model of argumentation provides a structured approach to

constructing persuasive arguments by effectively engaging the audience, presenting evidence and

reasoning, and addressing opposing viewpoints.

 Rogerian

The Rogerian model of argumentation, named after the psychologist Carl Rogers, is a

persuasive strategy that aims to find common ground and foster mutual understanding between

opposing viewpoints. Unlike the classical model, which focuses on winning and proving one side

right, the Rogerian model emphasizes empathy, respect, and collaboration.

In a Rogerian argument, the writer or speaker acknowledges and understands the

opposing position before presenting their own perspective. The goal is to create an atmosphere of

trust and openness, allowing for constructive dialogue. By recognizing the validity of the

opposing viewpoint, the writer or speaker can build rapport and establish common ground.

The structure of a Rogerian argument typically includes the following elements:

1.Introduction

2.Opposing Position

3.Statement of Understanding

4.Statement of Your Position

5.Supporting Evidence

6.Acknowledgment of Counterarguments

7.Conclusion

The Rogerian model is not without its limitations. Some critics argue that it may not be

effective in situations where one side is unwilling to engage in a constructive dialogue or where

there is a significant power imbalance between the parties involved.

Overall, the Rogerian model of argumentation offers an alternative approach to

traditional argumentation, focusing on empathy, understanding, and collaboration to find

mutually beneficial solutions.

 Toulmin

The Toulmin model of argumentation is a framework for analyzing and constructing

arguments. It was developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin in the 1950s. The model breaks

down arguments into six components: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing .

Claim: The conclusion or statement that the speaker wants the audience to believe.

Grounds: The foundation or basis for the claim, the evidence or support.

Warrant: The reasoning that authorizes the inferential leap from the grounds to the claim.

Qualifier: The degree of certainty or strength of the claim.

Rebuttal: Exceptions or counterarguments that might be offered to the claim.

Backing: The support or evidence for the warrant.

The Toulmin model provides a structured approach to analyzing and evaluating

arguments, particularly in situations where there are no clear truths or absolute solutions.

The Toulmin model allows for a systematic analysis of arguments, considering the

various components and their relationships. It helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of

an argument and allows for a more nuanced understanding of complex situations.

In conclusion, these models of argumentation can give any person a good process to

argue a topic. In my opinion, the rogerian model is the best model of argumentation because it

leaves both parties with a respectful view of one another.