Crowley, Hawhee and Argumentative Theory -- Trifecta Awesome!

I was really pleased with this reading, particularly because I've tried to teach classical argument before, and these universal (even though they're Greek) concepts are EXACTLY the kind of thing students need to know. I had so many instances of students arguing in a vacuum, arguing on assumptions, or providing evidence against an argument that was not their actual claim. Always the same issues too -- death penalty, 2nd Amendment rights, texting and driving, smoking bans, and abortion, abortion, abortion. And rarely a new or creative argument.

If I ever go back to teaching an argument-based research class, I would have to employ this material in some way for the students' benefit. As Janessa said, the first chapter about kairos conjoins perfectly with the chapter about stasis. You start out with your issue, asking yourself questions about its context and significance. Who is going to find this information compelling? Is there a way you can reach an audience that maybe doesn't agree with you? I can even connect this up to my lessons regarding the argumentative strategies of ethos, pathos and logos, which I always put in the context of the rhetorical triangle (more Greek terms, btw!): How are you going to establish your credibility as an author (ethos)? How are you going to make your audience feel like your claim has something to do with them (pathos)? How are you going to represent your claim logically and honestly (logos)?

For students, it's important that they see their subject matter as part of a tenuous web that is connected to many different factors rather than a straight path that leads to a finish line. The discussion of kairos can lead them directly into the discussion of stasis, and here they can better realize that in argument they are required to understand their opponent's position and figure out how to place their claim in relation to it.

For example, I had a student who wrote a paper with the following claim: "Liberals are morons because they're going against our 2nd Amendment rights by trying to take our guns away." In the paper itself, the student argued primarily that right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, and and that owning guns is important for our individual protection. It was very difficult for me to fully communicate the many, many problems about this claim and how disconnected it was from the evidence cited within the body of the paper. If I'd had access to Crowley and Hawhee, I might have done a better job of explaining myself.

So, the opponent's argument in stasis would be this: Liberals are not morons because they're going against our 2nd Amendment rights by trying to take our guns away. Which is really far off track from the left's ACTUAL claims regarding gun control. I kept pushing the student to investigate the other side of the argument, but I didn't make clear enough to him that the basic assumptions of the claim needed to be dealt with first. Are liberals trying to take "our" guns away? Who are these "liberals"? Who is "our" referring to? Does the 2nd Amendment actually guarantee the right for individuals to have guns, and if so, any kind of gun? And are there circumstances in which gun ownership should be restricted or not allowed at all? Why are you making this argument now? Are there particular laws being discussed in congress that you see as a threat to gun ownership?

Asking questions like these helps to reveal a necessary nuance in student arguments -- and it helps them to think in ways they've never been required to think before.