Formalist Argument

I think Kastely's article is important in that it's pushing for students to ask deeper questions about argument. Many of my students at JCC could identify basic concepts when I asked them what makes up a "successful" argument (a clear claim, evidence, research, etc) and yet their papers would read like rants and be very unpersuasive. I would ask them what audience they thought would be receptive to their argument, and some wouldn't be able to answer me, or they would just say, "Pretty much just people who agree with me." Which raises the question, "Why are you writing this at all?"

This leads to the bigger question, "Why argue at all?" which I should probably be asking first before even getting into the idea of the "successful" argument (if a highly substantiated argument falls on deaf ears, is it really a successful argument anyway?).

The book I was using to teach had a really nice chapter, not just on Classical and Toulmin models of argument, but on the Rogerian model as well, which emphasizes the idea of argument as a meeting of common ground. The reason for argument goes from the very individualist perspective of, "How can I best make my case?" to the more communal perspective of "How can we best solve this problem?" The example I always used for the Rogerian model was MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail," which tended to lead to a really good class discussion. Many of my students really liked the idea of solving problems as opposed to "battling" with an imaginary opponent, though a few students resisted the Rogerian perspective altogether, claiming that it wasn't "real" argument.

Hmm. Just out of curiosity, what other experiences have you guys had teaching formalist argument? What works for you? What doesn't?