Relating to the Toulmin Model

Part 1: Loosely Comparing the Toulmin model to a math proof.

The idea came to me when I was reading about symbolism. This idea is to compare each part of the model to that of a basic mathematical proof. I was surprised to see how well it fit. However, as I thought about it more, I realized that they both have relatively the same basic objective.

The standard proof is very simple. It is given X prove Y using a,b, and c assuming a,b, and c are true. One would then fill in a series of postulates and theories that the mathematic community has for the time deemed true to come to a conclusion that they must also for the time deem true.

This is the model I came up with:

Given: (Warrant)
Prove: (Claim)
Theories: Grounds and Backing
Postulates: Further Warrants
Assumptions: Qualifier
Stating exceptions due to mathematic impossibility: Rebuttal

Now to explain how each one relates. The prove is somewhat obvious, the claim in the model must be proven and the claim in this proof must be... proven. OK, so thats over with. Now for the less obvious relations.

The given in the proof has to be the warrant. The given is something true that you have to base the entire proof around. Without that common ground on which to set the literal and figurative foundation on, your argument or chance at proving the claim will be blown away or collapse onto itself. Since everything spoken is essentially and argument, something agreed upon to be true is definitely a powerful tool.

This said, the warrant//given itself is not enough to get to the actual claim//proof. In the math proof, one needs to employ a series of theorems backed by postulates to logically show that the claim the proof is making has to be considered true. In the model, the theorems are similar to the grounds. They are ideas, facts, support, and data that aid in proving a claim. Of course , just as theorems are all based off of postulates, grounds are usually claims in themselves and need to be based off of their own warrants.

Fitting the Qualifier into this giant simile was not easy. In math there isn't usually a gray area, there is either true or false. There are, however, assumptions made not always supported by the given information. The occasional assumptions used in proofs are the closest match to the Qualifier in the Toulmin model. Like the assumptions, the Qualifier allows for some cushioning from someone pulling out a "well in this extreme and virtually irrelevant example its false so there goes your argument".

Of course what kind of mathematician would I be without mentioning impossibilities such as division by zero. These special cases where one preforms a completely impossible operation call for an exception in math. As opposed to the rebuttal, simply saying, "it's true except when this happens" is a much easier way to get past obstacles in the way of proving your claim. The rebuttal basically does the same thing but in a way much more convincing to most people one may be arguing with.

Well that basically raps up the comparisons. I will of course keep updated on this post and would love to make some changes/improvements in the future.


Part II: The importance and identification of the Warrant.

The Warrant. It even sounds authoritative. Warrant... Well, this sixth of the argument seems to be a challenge. According to the design of the Toulmin Model, the Warrant is never really said aloud, changes with each listener or reader, and, like the other parts of the model, is near impossible to win without. So, why is this piece so important and how does one impliment it into one's arguments?

The Warrant itself is a cornerstone to the argument. If your argument was a house, this is a cement basement keeping it from sinking into the mud. Guess what happens if you sent a die hard evolutionist to try to convince an equally biased evangelical creationist that evolution did in fact shape life on earth. Come on, guess. If you guessed that they would spend the entire time simply yelling opposing views, not acknowledging each others' opinions and/or getting nowhere then you are probably right. One of the big problems in that situation is that they lack common ground. They need a foundation to agree upon so that one may build a tower of argument onto it eventually reaching the high set goal of proving one's point. To put it bluntly: They need something to agree upon. The warrant is this something.

Well by now your may thinking, "Hey, John, how in the world would one find such a warrant?". I assume, however, that you already know seeing as you are in the exact same class as I am and have already learned this from our teacher. (Teachers tend to be a lot more qualified than me at teaching as well.) In which case this is simply to serve as a friendly, maybe more confusing reminder. The easiest way to find a warrant would be to simply chat with a potential audience or opponent until you agree to agree on something. That something should become your warrant. Another more difficult tactic one may employ would be to get an understanding of who it is you may be trying to convince. In this case, the more information you have about the person and their views, the better your chances at finding a good warrant are. For example if you are arguing with feminist than a good warrant would be "men and women should be treated/respected/seen/acknowledged/etc as equals in every way". I am assuming that for most pro-equality people some qualifiers wouldn't exactly work very well in that warrant but it is a warrant none the less. In my opinion, one of the most difficult but effective ways of producing a potent warrant is to actually work of an opponent's rebuttals. Because a rebuttal is a claim in itself, it too should be based pretty solidly on a warrant. If you can figure out what your opponent accepts as basic truth than that is a potentially great warrant.

Example: You are arguing that you should stay in Iraq. Your opponent rebuts and claim that too many soldiers are being killed there. If you can figure out that your opponent values life extremely highly from that than you not only have a counter argument but also a possible warrant to arm yourself with. A statement you could include based on that warrant may be "The current occupation in Iraq is one of the few things preventing full on civil war and a large body count."

The warrant is obviously and important part to one's argument and finding a warrant may be the difference between losing an argument and convincing someone that you are correct. As long as there is a warrant, you can win because your opponent has already accepted something you say or imply as true.

Part III: My interpertation of the Toulmin Model.

Well I see this model as a variety of things. When Mr. Lazarow taught us the model, he gave many great examples of how it would work in an essay and why it works much better than other methods in an essay. I sort of ignored the whole essay part and stuck to the model itself. This model is a platform for arguing. When I talk about the model, I am speaking about it as if it is a syntax in which to form an argument of any from rather than just in an essay or other publication. This is why I compared it to a math proof. I wanted to demonstrate not only that it fit together with other forms of arguments one may have already learned, but that it is applicable to vitually anything.

The more often I ponder the form of the model and the parts necassary to complete it, the more I see the strategy behind it. It sets a goal or point in the form of a claim that it needs to reach. The Toulmin model will take the opponent of the argument, whether it be a reader, listener, or actual designated opponent, and form the required negotiation to reach the goal. Rebuttals, qualifiers, and reservations need to be points given to your opponent so that you may get them to accept the grounds leading up to your point. As long as your warrant and grounds are enough to get to the point, it shouldn't matter what you have given to your opponent because the opponent will agree with the claim in the end. The Toulmin model takes the diplomatic middle ground and runs with it to both get a greater number of people to possibly agree and to make it easier to deal with opposition.

The more diplomatic approach of the Toulmin model compares much differently to other debate techniques. One technique that works towards the polar opposite of the Toulmin model is the skeptic approach to a pro argument. The skeptical approach can vary depending on the person employing it but it is somewhat constant in its basic principles. This approach is based on the believe that because the burden of proof lies with the affirmative, the negative usually has an easier time sowing doubt into the affirmitive than trying to build a case of one's own on why the negative is better. The skeptics understand that they do not need to win they just need the affirmitive to lose. Because there is no real claim to be achieved and no goal to build up but rather an opposing one to strip down, a skeptical strategy would likely be to turn each ground and backing into a claim and force the affirmative to provide further grounds and warrants for each. This would continue until either the debate ends and the skeptic couldn't prevent the claim from being proven or the affirmative runs out of grounds and warrants and is unable to prove the claim. There seems to be a pretty decent contrast between the Toulmin Model and other forms of argument making each unique and powerful tools in arguing.


This post is a little long and may have a decent amount of typos in it. Please feel free to post comments on the typos so that I may fix them as soon as possible.