AN ANALYSIS OF THE STRENGTHS OF ARGUMENTS OF THE 2012 UNITED STATES’ PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE : The Case Of Barrack Obama And Mitt Romney.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE STRENGTHS OF ARGUMENTS OF
THE 2012
UNITED STATES’
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE :
THE CASE OF BARRACK OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY
A RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted to the Department of English Education the faculty of Language and Arts Education, Indonesia University of Education as Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for Sarjana Sastra Degree
By
Herlin Octaviani 0807535
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION 2014
(2)
An Analysis of the Strengths of Arguments of the 2012
United States’ Presidential Debate: The Case of Barrack
Obama and Mitt Romney
Oleh Herlin Octaviani
Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni
© Herlin Octaviani 2014 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(3)
PAGE OF APPROVAL
An Analysis of the Strengths of Arguments of the 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate: The Case of Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney
By
Herlin Octaviani 0807535
Approved by:
Main Supervisor
Prof. E. Aminudin Aziz, M.A., Ph.D. NIP. 196711161992031001
The Head of English Education Department Faculty of Language and Art Education
Indonesia University of Education
Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed. NIP. 1962110119871210001
Co-Supervisor
Ruswan Dallyono, M.Pd. NIP. 197008032005011002
(4)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
ABSTRACT
The study aims to measure the arguments’ strength of the 2012 United
States’ presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, in their latest
presidential debate. The researcher selected 40 arguments from the debate transcription, based on the completeness requirement of the primary elements of
Toulmin’s Argumentation Model (1958), such as claim, ground and warrants. The data analyzed through the three stages of analysis, namely cogency analysis,
soundness analysis and strength level analysis. From the data analysis results, three qualifications were discovered, such as: strong argument, weak argument
and very weak argument. The analysis results show Barrack Obama as the winner of the latest U.S presidential debate. Obama won the debate because his strong
arguments’ frequency is higher than Romney’s strong argument in the debate. Furthermore, most of Obama’s arguments, either strong or weak, are constructed
in the form of deductive arguments. As the nature of deductive argument, which
guarantees the cogency and the validity of its conclusion, therefore, Obama’s
arguments in the latest presidential debate 2012 are mostly cogent and valid. Keywords: argument strength, cogency analysis, soundness analysis, strength level analysis.
(5)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengukur kekuatan argument dari kandidat presiden Amerika tahun 2012, Barrack Obama dan Mitt Romney, pada debat kepresidenan. Peneliti memilih 40 argumen pada traskripsi debat, yang dipilih berdasarkan syarat kelengkapan tiga elemen utama dari Model Argumentasi Toulmin (1958) yaitu claim, grounds dan warrant. Data yang diperoleh kemudian dianalisa melalui tiga tahapan analisa, yaitu cogency analysis, soundness analysis
dan strength level analysis. Dari hasil analysis data, ditemukan tiga kualifikasi kekuatan argumen pada debat yaitu strong argument, weak argument and very weak argument. Hasil penelitian menunjukan Obama memenangkan perdebatan karena memiliki frekuensi strong argument yang lebih banyak dibandingkan dengan Romney. Selain itu, hampir semua argumen Obama dalam debat, baik
strong argument atau weak argument, terkonstruksi dalam argumen deduktif. Sebagaimana deduktif argumen yang selalu menjamin cogency dan validity dari kesimpulannya, maka kebanyakan argumen-argumen Obama di dalam debat kepresidenan Amerika tahun 2012 juga terkonstruksi dalam argumen yang cogent
dan valid.
Kata Kunci: argument strength, cogency analysis, soundness analysis, strength level analysis.
(6)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION PREFACE
ACKNOLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study 1.2 Research Question 1.3 Aims of the Study 1.4 Scope of the Study 1.5 Significance of the Study 1.6 Research Methodology
1.6.1 Research Design
1.6.2 Site and the Participants 1.6.3 Data Collection
1.6.4 Data Analysis 1.7 Clarification of the Terms 1.8 Organization of the Paper
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 2.1 Argument in General
2.1.1 Three Kinds of Argument A. Deductive Argument B. Inductive Argument C. Conductive Argument 2.1.2 Arguments and Philosophy
2.2 Toulmin’s Argumentation Model
i ii iii v vi ix x 1 1 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 14 16 18 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(7)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
2.3 The First Level of Analysis: The Soundness of an Argument 2.3.1 Claim
2.3.2 Grounds 2.3.3 Warrant 2.3.4 Backing
2.3.5 Sample of Argument
2.4 The Second Level of Analysis: The Strength of an Argument 2.4.1 Qualifier
2.4.2 Rebuttal 2.5 Previous Studies
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction
3.2 Formulation of Problems 3.3 Research Design
3.4 Data Collection 3.5 Data Analysis
3.5.1 Cogency Analysis, Soundness Analysis and Strength Level Analysis
3.5.2 Examples of Data Analysis
3.5.2.1 Stage 1 : Cogency Analysis 3.5.2.2 Stage 2 : Soundness Analysis 3.5.2.3 Stage 3 : Strength Level Analysis CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Findings
4.1.1 The Qualifications of Arguments’ Strength A. Strong Argument
B. Weak Argument C. Very Weak Argument 4.1.2 Fallacy
4.2 Obama’s Argument vs Romney Argument
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
20 20 22 23 24 24 25 25 27 27 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 35 37 37 40 41 50 55 56 57 58 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(8)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
5.1 Conlusions 5.2 Suggestions BIBLIOGRAPHY
58 59 60 ... ... ...
(9)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Type of Claim and Examples Table 2.2 Type of Grounds and Examples Table 2.3 Type of Warrant and Examples Table 3.1 Example of Cogency Analysis Table 3.2 Example of Soundness Analysis Table 4.1 The Data Analysis Results
Table 4.2 The Percentage of Each Arguments’ Strength Qualification Between
the Two Candidates
21 22 23 33 34 37 57 ...
... ... ... ... ...
(10)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Distinguishing the Three Kinds of Arguments
Figure 2 Toulmin’s Basic Argumentation Pattern
Figure 3 Complete Pattern of Toulmin’s Argumentation Model
Figure 4 Argumentation Pattern with the Addition of Backing Figure 5 Argumentation Pattern Example
Figure 6 Obama’s Argument Pattern in Transcription No.2
Figure 7 Romney’s Argument Pattern in Transcription No.21
Figure 8 An example of weak argument that resuts from missing backing
(taken from Romney’s argument structure in transcription No.3)
Figure 9 An example of weak argument that resuts from missing rebuttal
(taken from Romney’s argument structure in transcription No.18)
Figure 10 An example of weak argument that resuts from missing backing and
rebuttal (taken from Obama’s argument structure in transcription
No.10)
Figure 11 An example of weak argument that resuts from uncogent and missing backing (taken from Obama’s argument structure in transcription No.15)
Figure 12 An example of weak argument that resuts from uncogent and missing rebuttal (taken from Romney’s argument structure in transcription No.36)
Figure 13 An example of very weak argument that resuts from uncogent, missing
backing and missing rebuttal (taken from Romney’s argument structure
in transcription No.25)
Figure 14 An example of fallacy from unwarranted assumptions (taken from
Romney’s argument structure in transcription No.37)
21 22 23 33 34 42 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ...
(11)
1
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the introduction of the study, which consists of the background of the study, the research questions, the aims of the study, the scope of the study, and the significance of the study.
1.1Background of the Study
Aristotle‟s politics in Hendricks & Denton (2010: 1) proclaimed that
humans “are political beings, [who] alone of the animals, [are] furnished with the faculty of language.". Thus, from their ability in using language, humans are naturally born as political beings. Politics itself is defined as a mechanism by which a group of people from different opinions or interests has reached collective decisions that is generally treated as a common policy that is also bound their group (Miller, 1991: 390). It is often said that politics exist because of people’ disagreement. “They disagree about how they should live; who should get what? How should power and other sources to be distributed? Should society be based on cooperation and conflict? And so on.” (Heywood, 2002: 3).
Disagreement in politics is strongly associated with a term "debate". Debate refers to a discussion about a subject on which the interlocutors have different views that they defend and attempt to persuade other debaters through argumentation (Kahlos, 2007: 62). In other words, an orderly debate attempts to provide an effective way of resolving conflict which is caused by people’ disagreement.
In the United States of America, a debate is more than a political tool; it is also “a means of educating the young, honing professional skills, demonstrating personal worth, and enlightening the citizenry” (Jamieson and Birdsell, 1988: 19). As a democratic country, debate in the United States may also occur in the case of
(12)
2
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
the presidential election campaign. This is done to provide an overview to the public about their leaders‟ figure by comparing their plans for the country which are delivered through arguments in the debate. For many years, American presidential debates have appeared as “the most well-known political debates and
the most researched political television programs” (Isolatus, 2011: 31).
The latest American presidential debate was conducted on October 22, 2012 at Lynn University, Boca Raton-Florida. The debate involved the two American presidential candidates, namely Barrack Obama from Democratic Party and his opponent Mitt Romney from the Republican Party. Even though the euphoria of the presidential debate has ended and the American people have already elected Barrack Obama as their leader for the second term, however, their latest debate was still of intense public discussion.
The latest debate focused on the foreign policies. In the debate, both presidential candidates argued about security flaws in Libya, how to restrain Iran's nuclear project, the turbulent crisis in Syria, the rise of China, and an end to the war in Afghanistan. As reported from vivanews.com on October 31, 2012, the debate which lasted for 96 minutes 17 seconds was unbiased, useful and dignified so that it invited the admiration from the world community. The Rector of the University of Paramadina, Anies Bawedan, assessed the U.S presidential debate as
“a high quality debate” and should be studied by Indonesian presidential candidates. Bawedan further said that "Obama and Romney argued about the substance, they show differences, but elegantly conveyed, no personal attacks,
even highly trained to deliver it”.
Along with many compliments and flatteries against their debate, however, the winner of the latest debate is still questioned. CNN poll said Obama was ahead by winning 48 percent of the votes. He defeated his opponent, Mitt Romney, who had only 40 percent of the votes. Alex Castellanos, Republican strategist and CNN contributor, also acknowledged that Obama won the latest debate. However, he added, Romney has demonstrated a cool and calm leadership style, in contrast to Obama who appeared aggressively.
(13)
3
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Another criticism was delivered by Frederick E. Allen, the Lead Editor of Forbes, who criticize through his online article entitled “Who Won the Third
Presidential Debate in Terms of Temperament?”. He wrote that the last debate does not have a clear winner because both candidates looked pretty strong for much of the debate. He also mentioned that “both of the candidates remained calm in the face of sharp challenges, ready with quick answers without hesitation, and well-versed in incredibly complex matters”. From the latest debate, he has learned that the presidential temperament is the most important thing to look in assessing the quality of each candidate's argument. According to Allen, strength of character allows a president to remain open-minded and flexible, to stay on top of all the events and even to convince the audiences about their capability in tackling the
world‟s most difficult problems (Allen, 2012).
However, the number of emerging polls and opinions certainly does not provide satisfaction for me as a language researcher. The polls only represent the number of persons who like or do not like the performance of their presidential candidates without knowing the factors that influence them to make such a decision. Thus, those internal factors such as the power of language they have used in the debate and their effort to attract public attention, of course, could never be discussed in a poll. However, all of that can be identified by conducting linguistic research. In linguistic research, the winner of a debate can be determined theoretically by using the debate transcription as the research data. In this regard, the strength of each candidate‟s argument is measured using an appropriate language approach.
One of the linguistic approaches that draws the researcher’s attention comes from Stephen E. Toulmin, an English philosopher and logician. In his book, The Uses of arguments, Toulmin (1958) presents a very useful method of analyzing an argument, namely “Toulmin Argumentation Model”. In this model, an argument is identified into several parts, such as claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier and rebuttal. The connection of each element is
(14)
4
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
analyzed according to their participation from the overall text. In short, Toulmin‟s Method is a suitable method of analyzing persuasive arguments because it allows the researcher to make judgments on how well the different parts of elements work together in an argument.
Calling it “Toulmin Argumentation Model”, Toulmin (1984) continued his research on argument towards a more profound direction by introducing his second edition book entitled An Introduction to Reasoning. Toulmin (1984) has provided an effective way of measuring arguments‟ strength. According to him, there are two levels of analysis that must be traversed in measuring arguments‟ strength. The first level is Soundness level. It is delivered from a pattern of analysis where the elements of an argument are „hanged‟ together. At the first level, the presence backing is required as an additional element for the three basic elements of an argument (claim, grounds, warrant). Afterwards, in the second level of analysis the researcher shall have to pay particular attention to the terms
qualifier and rebuttal. In an argument, a qualifier is necessary in order “to indicate the kind of rational strength to be attributed to claim on the basis of its relationship to the grounds, warrant and backing” (Toulmin, 1984: 86). Whereas rebuttal is important to state precisely all of the conditions and premises on which someone have the reason to believe that an argument is a really strong argument.
There are many linguistic studies that have been conducted that raised arguments‟ strength as the main focus of their research. One of the studies is the work of Freeman in 2006 that used Cohen‟ concept of ampliative probability. This ampliative probability (1977) can be used to define and assess the strength of Toulmin‟s arguments. According to Freeman (2006), Cohen‟ notion of ampliative support and ampliative probability is not only able to determine the degree of
arguments‟ strength, but also to decide whether the degree of arguments‟ strength is sufficient to make an acceptable conclusion. It was revealed that “if the premises of a warrant-establishing argument presented the data of some series of canonical tests, the strength of the argument would apparently be the same as the degree of inductive support” (Freeman, 2006: 39).
(15)
5
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
There is also another study which was conducted by Glazer and Rubinstein (2000). They addressed the issue of the relative strength of arguments and counterarguments. They classified three types of debate model in the form of a game to examine different aspects of debates, such as one-speaker debate
where one of the debaters has to choose two arguments, simultaneous debate
where the two debaters move simultaneously each one has to make one argument and sequential debate which contain two-stage game.
The Study of language, especially in the field of arguments‟ strength also came from Zhao et al. (2011). He used the term Perceived Arguments Strength as a complement to the conventional thought-listing measure of arguments‟ strength. Perceived Arguments‟ Strength is referred as “the audience members‟ perceptions of the quality, strength, and persuasiveness of the arguments” (Zhao et al., 2011: 95). In his research results, Zhao et al. (2011) concluded that the perceived argument strength scale with its own limitations is not immune to the influence of
„social desirability biases‟. He added that the scale as a multiple-item instrument in particular circumstances of low motivation could also become victims to the response set.
This research focuses on argumentative analysis on the latest U.S presidential debate which concentrates on the measurement of arguments‟ strength. Research in the field of arguments‟ strength using Toulmin‟s theory has not been conducted much. However, two studies using the Toulmin Argumentation Model in the field of education and preliminary rulings have been conducted in Indonesia. The studies were conducted by Hidayati (2009) and Mehr (2010). In the research, Hidayati (2009) conducted collaborative classroom action research through the four stages of action research (planning, implementing,
observing and reflecting) to improve students‟ ability in writing argumentative
paragraphs. In her conclusion, she mentions that “the implementation of
Toulmin‟s Method could help the students improving their ability in writing argumentative paragraphs under the following sequence of procedures”
(16)
6
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
(Hidayanti, 2009: 89). Whereas Mehr (2010), mentions that Toulmin's model of argumentation is not only relevant when analyzing and examining argumentation in academic texts, but it also can be used to analyze argumentation in Preliminary Rulings. In her conclusion, she made a statement that “argumentation is a vital thing when a ruling is made” (Mehr, 2010: 78).
Previous studies by Hidayati (2009) and Mehr (2010) seem to deal mainly with the implementation of argumentation in academic texts. In this case, the present study provides an overview of the steps in the measurement of arguments‟ strength using Toulmin‟s methods. Furthermore, the present study aims to prove theoretically about who deserves to be the winner of the latest American presidential debate 2012.
1.2 Research Questions
The research questions of the study are formulated as follows:
1. What are the argument structures of the latest debate between Obama and Romney?
2. Who is the winner of the latest U.S presidential debate, according to
Toulmin‟s theory?
1.3 Aims of the Study
The study aims to prove theoretically about who deserves to be the winner of the latest 2012 American presidential debate.
1.4 Scope of the Study
The research focuses on rhetorical analysis, especially argumentative discourse, using the six elements of Toulmin‟ argumentation models (1958), namely: (1) claim: the proposition or assertion an arguer wants another to accept, (2) data: the proof or evidence an arguer offers, (3) warrant: a chain of reasoning that connects the data to the claim, (4) backing: additional justification for the warrant, (5) Counterclaim: A claim that negates or disagrees with the
(17)
7
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
thesis/claim, and (6) Rebuttal: Evidence that negates or disagrees with the counterclaim. Afterwards, the analysis has classified into three stages, namely
cogency analysis, soundness analysis and strength analysis. The researcher gave a limitation to the data analysis by analyzing the latest debate of the two American presidential candidates on October 22, 2012 in Lynn University, Boca Raton-Florida.
1.5 Significance of the Study
This study is expected to make a contribution to the related study toward language learners both theoretical and practical and useful information on effective public speaking. The study is also expected to be useful for the next researchers who are interested in conducting research in the same field. The researcher hopes that this study will contribute to the readers in presenting the arts of speaking. The students and the researcher herself, who read the outcomes of this study can positively apply the steps in measuring arguments‟ strength using Toulmin‟ Methods and give their friends motivation in order to be more curious in learning language(s).
1.6 Research Methodology 1.6.1 Research Design
The study used a descriptive qualitative method, because the data was not only explored in the form of words, but also included its numerical or statistical descriptions. The data of the study were interpreted and analyze descriptively, so the final outcome of the research is the description of the data. Whereas, the numerical or statistical description is needed as a comparation scale of the final outcome. The research data were the printed transcription of the latest debate of the two 2012 American presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, on 22 October 2012 at Lynn University, Boca Raton- Florida. The research data were taken from non- profit public charity website www.debates.org.
(18)
8
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
After obtaining the data collection, the researcher applied the stages of
analysis based on Toulmin‟s method.
1.6.2 Site and Participants of the Study
The study analyzed the latest debate transcription of the two American presidential candidates, Barack Obama from Democratic Party and Mitt Romney from Republic Party on 22 October 2012 in Lynn University, Boca Raton- Florida.
1.6.3 Data Collection
The data were printed transcription of the latest debate of the 2012 American presidential candidates; Barack Obama from Democratic Party and Mitt Romney from Republic Party. Later, the data compiled were analyzed using the six elements of Toulmin‟s models of argumentation (1969) and classified into three stages of analysis, namely cogency analysis, soundness analysis and
strength analysis. The researcher limited the data analysis by analyzing the latest debate of the 2012 American presidential candidates on October 22.
1.6.4 Data Analysis
After the data sources were obtained, the researcher started to analyze the
data. First, the researcher identified the data collection using Toulmin‟s
argumentation elements such as, claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier and
rebuttal. Second, the researcher analyzed the cogency level of each element. Third, the researcher looked for the presence of additional elements, such as
qualifier and rebuttal. Finally, the researcher counted and compared the outcome of the research in the form numerical or statistical description to achieve the final results.
Those are the steps of the analysis in this research. In the qualitative data analysis, several simultaneous activities engage the attention of the researcher such as collecting information on the field, intensive reading, sorting the information into categories, classifying the findings, and then writing the
(19)
9
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
qualitative text. The researcher has, therefore, begun the research because he attempted to find the data source.
1.7 Clarification of Terms
To avoid misunderstanding and misinterpreting, the researcher defines the operational definition of the key terms as follows:
1. Toulmin Argumentation Model
Toulmin (1958) introduces six elements of persuasive argument, namely: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal and qualifier. Toulmin‟s method has appeared as a very useful approach in argumentative analysis. 2. Cogency
An argument is said to be cogent if it has factual grounds and a valid warrant (even though the argument's conclusion can be either certainty, possibility or preference).
3. Soundness
The Soundness of an argument is delivered from a pattern of analysis
where the elements of an argument are „hanging‟ together (Toulmin‟s
Argumentation Pattern). In this level, the elements require are claim, grounds, warrant and backing.
4. Argument Strength
The last level of analysis deals with the strength of the connections on which the argument depends. In this level, we shall have to pay special attention to the notion of qualifier and rebuttal.
(20)
10
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
1.8 Organization of the Paper
The paper consists of five chapters, including Introduction, Literature Review, Research Method, Findings and Discussion, and the Conclusion of the study.
Chapter one or Introduction introduces the background of the study, the formulation of the problems or research questions, the aims of the study, the scope of the study, the significance of the study, the research method and design, clarification of the terms used in the study, and finally the organization of the paper.
Chapter two or Literature Review contains a review of Toulmin Models of Argumentation as the theoretical basis of this study along with the previous studies.
Chapter three or Research Method covers the methodology of the study, including the research design, participants of the study, the resources of the data or data collection, and the steps and procedures in analyzing the data which were gathered. Finally, the chapter displays examples of data analysis of the study presented further in chapter four.
Chapter four presents the results of the study. It consists of the findings of the research and the discussion of the findings that answer the problems of the study.
Chapter five provides the conclusions of the study, an interpretation toward the findings or the results of the study. It also presents suggestions for further future research in the same field.
(21)
30
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to give a description concerning the procedure of this study. The first section covers the formulation of problems which comprises the issues being analyzed in this study. Later, the research design applied during the course of this study encompasses a conceptual structure used in the research. It constitutes the design of the collection of data and the analysis of the data collected.
3.2 Formulation of the Problems
This study presents an examination of argumentation that is used in a presidential debate. It covers an investigation of the strength of presidential
candidate‟s argument in convincing the public that he deserves to be the nation‟s
leader. Here, the strength of an argument is determined by a 'logical relationship' between each element that constitute an argument. The constituent elements of an argument, namely: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal and qualifier that are used in this study is based on Toulmin Argumentation Model(1958)
The study involved the two American presidential candidates 2012, Barrack Obama from the Democratic party and Mitt Romney from Republican party. The researcher took the latest debate of the 2012 American presidential candidates as the research data of this study. In particular, the researcher aims to determine the strength of arguments from both candidates and compare them to determine the winner of the latest debate. On the other hand, the purpose of examining the argumentation elements and its relationship is also to discover what are the argument structures that exist in the latest debate.
(22)
31
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.3 Research Design
The study employed the theory of measuring arguments‟ strength proposed by Toulmin (1984). The framework is well known as „Toulmin‟s Argumentation Model' which contains two levels of analysis, namely: soundness analysis and strength level analysis. In this study, the researcher added the term
„cogency‟ from Birkett (2005) as the initial level to further simplify the study in
determining the feasibility of argument.
Thus, there were three stages of analysis in conducting this research. The stages include: cogency analysis, soundness analysis and strength level analysis. At the cogency analysis, an argument was analyzed according to the factuality of its grounds and the validity of its warrant. Then, the researcher looked for the presence of backing element that was required to determine an argument‟s soundness. The last, the strength of an argument was measured and determined based on its appropriate qualification (qualifier).
3.4 Data Collection
The data of the present study was a debate transcription of the latest American presidential debates in 2012. The data was taken from a relevant internet source, www.debates.org. This website is shaded by a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, namely the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). CPD was established in 1987 and chaired by Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. The primary purpose of CPD is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates. The website is also provided for research and educational activities relating to the presidential debates.
From the main transcription, the researcher selected 40 arguments which contain at least the three primary elements, such as claim, ground and warrant. The importance of the presence of these three basic elements in constructing a
(23)
32
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
“Claim (C) as the main purpose of an argument that tells what exactly an argument is about, where the argument stands for and a certain position that must be considered by the audience so that they will agree with the outcome of the argument. The grounds (G) are the underlying foundation that must be solid and reliable or based on facts. Last, the warrant (W) is an assumption which links the claim to its grounds. Here, an argument is said to be cogent if it has factual
grounds and a valid warrant.” (Toulmin, 1984: 25)
The selected arguments consist of 20 arguments from Obama and 20 arguments from Romney. Later, the selected arguments were analyzed in the data analysis section.
3.5 Data Analysis
The data analysis was divided into several steps. The first step was related to the observation of Toulmin's argumentation elements in the debate. Each transcription that has been collected was examined and marked according to the type of element contained therein.
The second step was restating the data that have been marked into an indirect form which involved the assignment of reporting and paraphrasing. This step was intended to shorten a very long statement so that the data easier to understand and facilitate further analysis.
Later, in the third step of analysis, the researcher implemented the three stages of analysis to the research data.
3.5.1 Cogency Analysis, Soundness Analysis and Strength Level Analysis The study contains three stages of analysis, such as: cogency analysis,
soundness analysis and strength level analysis. Cogency analysis is the initial stage of analysis to determine the feasibility of an argument. Meanwhile, soundness and strength are the two levels of arguments‟ strength analysis, which has been proposed by Toulmin (1984). Thus, at the first stage, each argument is analyzed according to the factuality of its grounds and the validity of its warrant.
(24)
33
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
By examining the cogency of an argument, the researcher was not only able to determine the quality of the three basic constituent elements, but also able to see the connection between these essential elements.
In the second stage of analysis, backing (B) is required as an additional element to support the strength of its warrant. According to Toulmin (1984), an argument will carry real weight and support its conclusions only if the warrants is reliable and also to the point. Thus, the presence of backing in an argument is able to make the warrant to be more sound and relevant. Thus, in order to pass this stage, there are four elements required, such as claim, grounds, warrant and backing. The soundness of an argument is occupied from Toulmin‟s Argumentation Pattern.
The final stages of analysis deals with the strength of the connections on which the argument depends. In this stage, the researcher has to pay special attention to the notion of qualifier and rebuttal. Qualifier has a function to indicate the kind of rational strength to be attributed to claim on the basis of its relationship to Grounds, Warrant and Backing (Toulmin, 1984).
3.5.2 Examples of Data Analysis 3.5.2.1 Stage 1: Cogency Analysis
The first stage of the data analysis of this research was the analysis of cogency. The analysis is presented as follows:
Table 3.1 The Primary Elements of Transcription No.2 Primary
Elements Description
Type of Elements Claim Obama first job as US President is
keeping the American people safe. Claim of Fact
Grounds
- The war in Iraq has ended and Al Qaeda's core leadership has been decimated.
- Afghanistan has been transited in a responsible way.
- Obama took the lead in organizing an international
Grounds Based on evidence (true)
(25)
34
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Table 3.1 above displays the primary elements of the transcription No.2 which is also used as an example of analyses presented at chapter IV. The first column of the table indicates the primary elements of the transcription No.2. The second column indicates the description of the primary elements or several arguments which had been marked as the primary elements. The third column indicates the types of the primary elements.
Based on the table 3.1 the above argument is a cogent argument because the grounds is based on fact and the warrant is valid to support the possibility of the claim. It is in line with Martinich (2005: 20), who mentions that a good argument is one that shows a person a rational way to go from true premises to a true conclusion, as well as the subject allows.
3.5.2.2 Stage 2: Soundness Analysis
The second stage of the data analysis includes the presence of backing as an additional element which supports the validity of the warrant. The table below presents the additional elements of the transcription No.2 including backing element.
Table 3.2 The Additional Elements of Transcription No. 2 Additional
Elements Description Analysis
Backing
Obama disclosed the fact that Romney himself noticed the
success of the Obama
administration to combat
Al-The backing supports the validity of the
warrant. coalition that has liberating
Libya from a dictatorship over the past 40 years.
- Ten thousand Libyan in Benghazi marching after the
events and saying: “America is our friend”.
Warrant
Obama has successfully eradicated terrorism in a more responsible manner. This should be put to good use.
Warrant Based on Ethos (Source of credibility)
(26)
35
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Qaeda.
Rebuttal
Romney proposes a strategy that has been shown to fail to provide security for the American people and also fail to open up opportunities in the Middle East.
The rebuttal strongly supports the
claim.
Qualifier “So, certainly”
The existence rebuttal has
provided a
„certainty‟ of its claim”
Table 3.2 presents additional elements of the transcription No.2. The first column indicates the additional elements which occur in the argument. The second column indicates the description or arguments which have been marked as the additional elements. The third column presents the analysis results of each additional element. Based on the analysis result on table 3.2 the argument is
„sound‟ because the backing supports the validity of the warrant. 3.5.2.3 Stage 3: Strength Level Analysis
As indicated in table 3.2, the argument has a strong qualifier (“so, certainly”) because it includes the grounds that are reasonably needed (based on fact), the warrant is clearly relevant and the solidity of its backing is unchallenged (valid reasoning). Furthermore, the rebuttal strongly supports the claim by showing that Romney‟s strategy has been shown to fail to provide security for the American people and also fail to open up opportunities in the Middle East. Thus,
it can be concluded that Obama‟s argument in transcription No.2 is a strong
argument. The structure of Obama‟s strong argument can be seen in the following
(27)
36
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Figure 5 An Example of Obama’s Argument structure in Transcription No2
Thus, by applying the three stages of analysis, this study is aimed to answer the questions about whose argument is stronger between Obama and Romney in the latest American presidential debate 2012.
Obama has successfully eradicating terrorism in a more responsible manner. This should be put to good use.
War in Iraq has ended and Al Qaeda's core leadership has been decimated.
Obama took lead in organizing an international coalition that has liberating Libya from a dictatorship over the past 40 years .
Obama first job as US President is keeping American people safe.
Romney proposes a strategy that has been shown to fail to provide security for American people and also fail to open up opportunities in the Middle East.
Obama reveals the fact that Romney himself noticed the success of Obama administration to combat Al-Qaeda.
W
B
C
G
R
So, certainly,
(28)
58
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This is the last chapter of the study. This chapter presents the conclusions based on findings and discussions in the previous chapter. This chapter also offers the suggestions for further studies.
5.1 Conclusion
This paper examines the strength of arguments of the 2012 U.S presidential candidates, Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney. It has been revealed that arguments’ strength can be measured by applying an appropriate linguistic approach. By using Toulmin’s Argumentation Models (1958), this study aims to determine theoretically about who has stronger arguments between the 2012 American presidential candidates in their latest presidential debate.
According to the results of analysis, most of the weak arguments in the debate are in a form of inductive argument. It happens because the grounds of inductive arguments only present an analysis and reasons for the claim, but they do not guarantee the factuality of the grounds and the certainty of the claim.
Moreover, inductive arguments in this study are mostly uncogent. The ‘truth’ of the information that is given by the grounds is a necessary requirement for a cogent argument. One of this phenomenon is shown in the transcription
no.12 from Mitt Romney. In this transcription, Romney’s grounds are based on
analysis and reasons. He mentioned some reasons why America must not withdraw the foreign policy of the U.S missile defense. However, his reasons are
not accompanied by factual data either statistical, numerical or ‘accepted
premises’. In other words, these types of grounds is not strong enough to support the claim. As the impact of this action, the grounds only provide a ‘probability’ of its conclusion or the claim.
(29)
59
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Thus, the overall strong arguments in this study are constructed in the form of deductive argument. This is in line with the result of the study, which has determined Barrack Obama whose argumentation is stronger than Romney in the latest U.S presidential debate. Most of Obama’s arguments are in the form of deductive arguments. Even in a weak form, Obama’s arguments in the debate are mostly accompanied by factual grounds to support his claim. The example of this phenomenon is shown in the transcription No.13. In the transcription, Obama’s claim concerning the reality that America is now stronger than the first time Obama came into the office is supported by several facts which contain the U.S. advances under the Obama administration. Even though the argument is a cogent argument, however, in Toulmin’s Model (1958), this argument cannot be
mentioned as ‘a strong argument’. This argument only contains of the primary
elements without the addition of backing, rebuttal and qualifiers. In other words,
in Toulmin’s Method ‘a strong argument’ is not only cogent, but also need to be
sound and valid.
Therefore, not every argument in a form of deductive argument is ‘a strong
argument’ according to the Toulmin’s Argumentation Model (1958). In
conclusion, the type of argument does not indicate the strengths of arguments in Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation.
5.2 Suggestion
This study presents the answers regarding the research problems. The study, however, can raise numerous questions requiring further research. Future research can enrich the data by using any other data sources. The observation proved two different levels of arguments strength among the two American presidential candidates 2012, Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney, with the results of studies that proves Obama’s argumentation is stronger than Romney. However, the studies using different data will also yield different outcomes. By limitations that have been determined, this study is not a benchmark in assessing the credibility and personality of someone or anything personal. The study only provides steps in measuring argument strength in a specified time and context. To
(30)
60
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
conduct research related to the credibility, in-depth study is required along with the large amount of data.
(31)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, E. G. (2012). Who Won the third presidential debate in terms of temperament?. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/22/ who-won-the-third -presidential-debate- in-terms-of-temperament/
Amstrong, S. W., & Fogelin, R. (1976). Understanding arguments: an introduction to informal logic.United States: Wadsworth
Birkett, M. N. (2005). logic 1: tools for thinking. New Jersey: Classical Legacy Press
Castellanos, A. (2012). Presidential debate polls show win for Obama. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com /2012/10/23/ presidential- debate polls_n_2004065.html#slide=1516152
CPD. (2012). The third Obama - Romney presidential debate. Retrieved March 15, 2013, from http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-22-2012-the-third-obama-romney-presidential-debat
Chudnoff, E. (2007). A guide to a philosophical thinking. Cambridge: Harvad University Perss.
Enduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, Jonathan. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. London: Science Education
Freeman, B. J. (2006). Argument strength, the Toulmin model, and ampliative probability. A journal from University of New York
Flick, U. (2007) The qualitative research Kit. London: sage
Flick, U., Kardorff, E.v., and Steinke,. (2004) A companion to qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Glazer, J., & Rubinstein, A. (2000). Debates and decisions: on a rationale of argumentation rules. Tel Aviv University
Hendricks, A. J., & Denton, E. R. (2010). Communicator in chief: how Barrack Obama used new media technology to win the white house. Plymouth: Lexington Books
(32)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Hidayati, M. (2009). Using process approach to improve the ability of intermediate-level students in writing argumentative paragraphs. Unpublished research paper of English Education Department of University of Malang
Isolatus, P. (2008). Presidential debates: functional theory and finnish political communication culture. Stockholm: IAMCR Media and Global Devides Jamieson, H. K., & Birdsell, S. D. (1988). Presidential debates: the challenge of
creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press Kabbarch, J. (1987). Using Toulmin’s model of argumentation,Vol 6, No 1. Kahlos, M. (2007). Debate and dialogue .Burlington: Ashgate.
LaBossiere, M. C. (2010) 42 Fallacies. Retrived September 20, 2013, from http://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42- fallacies.pdf
Latif, S., & Nur, A. (2012). Apa bedanya debat capres Amerika dengan
Indonesia?. Retrived May 13, 2013, from
http://cangkang.vivanews.com/aff/news/read/363555- apa- bedanya - debat capres-amerika-dengan- indonesia
Merh, N. (2010). An analysis of the use of Toulmin's model of argumentation in preliminary rulings. Aarhus University
Mick, S.C. (2011).Rebuttal argument guidelines. Retrived May 13, 2013, from http://blogs.nd.edu/connie-snyder- mick/2013/03/21/hello-world/
Miller, D. (1991). “Politics” in Blackwell encyclopedia of political thought. Oxford
and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell
Murray, D. E. (2005). The ecology of leadership in TESOL. California: Anhaiem University
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. (1989). New York: Oxford University Press.
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. (2000). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pinto, R. (2010) Weighing evidence in the context of conductive reasoning. Canada: University of Windsor
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal logic, Vol.17, No.2:159-176.
(33)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Sneider, C. A. (2005). Influencing through argument. Newyork: IDBATE Press Book.
Steinhauser, P. (2012). CNN Poll: Nearly half of debate watchers say Obama won
showdown. Retrived May 13, 2013, from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/22/cnn-poll- who -won -the-debate/
Seyler, D.U. (1994). Understanding arguments: a text with readings. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
The third obama-romney presidential debate trascript. Retrived January 13, 2013 from http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-22-2012-the-third-obama-romney-presidential-debate
Thomson, A. (2002). Critical reasoning: a practical introduction. New York: Routledge.
Toulmin, E. S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, E. S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1978). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company
Walton, D. (2011). Conductive arguments in ethical deliberation, conductive argument: an overlooked type of defeasible reasoning, ed. J.A. Blair & R.H. Johnson. London: College Publications, 191-209.
Wellman, C. (1975). Morals and ethics, Dallas, Scott, Foresman and Company.
Villata, S., Boella, G. & Torre. (2010). Argumentation patterns. Torino: University of Turin Press
Zenker, F. (2009). Treating khun’s gap with critical contextualism. review of william rehg, cogent science in context. the science wars, argumentation and Habermas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Zhao, X. (2011). A Measure of perceived argument strength: reliability and validity.Virginia: George Mason University Press.
(1)
58
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This is the last chapter of the study. This chapter presents the conclusions based on findings and discussions in the previous chapter. This chapter also offers the suggestions for further studies.
5.1 Conclusion
This paper examines the strength of arguments of the 2012 U.S presidential candidates, Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney. It has been revealed that arguments’ strength can be measured by applying an appropriate linguistic approach. By using Toulmin’s Argumentation Models (1958), this study aims to determine theoretically about who has stronger arguments between the 2012 American presidential candidates in their latest presidential debate.
According to the results of analysis, most of the weak arguments in the debate are in a form of inductive argument. It happens because the grounds of inductive arguments only present an analysis and reasons for the claim, but they do not guarantee the factuality of the grounds and the certainty of the claim.
Moreover, inductive arguments in this study are mostly uncogent. The ‘truth’ of the information that is given by the grounds is a necessary requirement for a cogent argument. One of this phenomenon is shown in the transcription no.12 from Mitt Romney. In this transcription, Romney’s grounds are based on analysis and reasons. He mentioned some reasons why America must not withdraw the foreign policy of the U.S missile defense. However, his reasons are not accompanied by factual data either statistical, numerical or ‘accepted premises’. In other words, these types of grounds is not strong enough to support the claim. As the impact of this action, the grounds only provide a ‘probability’ of its conclusion or the claim.
(2)
59
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Thus, the overall strong arguments in this study are constructed in the form of deductive argument. This is in line with the result of the study, which has determined Barrack Obama whose argumentation is stronger than Romney in the latest U.S presidential debate. Most of Obama’s arguments are in the form of deductive arguments. Even in a weak form, Obama’s arguments in the debate are mostly accompanied by factual grounds to support his claim. The example of this phenomenon is shown in the transcription No.13. In the transcription, Obama’s claim concerning the reality that America is now stronger than the first time Obama came into the office is supported by several facts which contain the U.S. advances under the Obama administration. Even though the argument is a cogent argument, however, in Toulmin’s Model (1958), this argument cannot be mentioned as ‘a strong argument’. This argument only contains of the primary elements without the addition of backing, rebuttal and qualifiers. In other words, in Toulmin’s Method ‘a strong argument’ is not only cogent, but also need to be sound and valid.
Therefore, not every argument in a form of deductive argument is ‘a strong argument’ according to the Toulmin’s Argumentation Model (1958). In conclusion, the type of argument does not indicate the strengths of arguments in Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation.
5.2 Suggestion
This study presents the answers regarding the research problems. The study, however, can raise numerous questions requiring further research. Future research can enrich the data by using any other data sources. The observation proved two different levels of arguments strength among the two American presidential candidates 2012, Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney, with the results of studies that proves Obama’s argumentation is stronger than Romney. However, the studies using different data will also yield different outcomes. By limitations that have been determined, this study is not a benchmark in assessing the credibility and personality of someone or anything personal. The study only provides steps in measuring argument strength in a specified time and context. To
(3)
60
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
conduct research related to the credibility, in-depth study is required along with the large amount of data.
(4)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, E. G. (2012). Who Won the third presidential debate in terms of temperament?. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/22/ who-won-the-third -presidential-debate- in-terms-of-temperament/
Amstrong, S. W., & Fogelin, R. (1976). Understanding arguments: an introduction to informal logic.United States: Wadsworth
Birkett, M. N. (2005). logic 1: tools for thinking. New Jersey: Classical Legacy Press
Castellanos, A. (2012). Presidential debate polls show win for Obama. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com /2012/10/23/ presidential- debate polls_n_2004065.html#slide=1516152
CPD. (2012). The third Obama - Romney presidential debate. Retrieved March 15, 2013, from http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-22-2012-the-third-obama-romney-presidential-debat
Chudnoff, E. (2007). A guide to a philosophical thinking. Cambridge: Harvad University Perss.
Enduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, Jonathan. (2004). TAPping into argumentation:
developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for
studying science discourse. London: Science Education
Freeman, B. J. (2006). Argument strength, the Toulmin model, and ampliative probability. A journal from University of New York
Flick, U. (2007) The qualitative research Kit. London: sage
Flick, U., Kardorff, E.v., and Steinke,. (2004) A companion to qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Glazer, J., & Rubinstein, A. (2000). Debates and decisions: on a rationale of argumentation rules. Tel Aviv University
Hendricks, A. J., & Denton, E. R. (2010). Communicator in chief: how Barrack Obama used new media technology to win the white house. Plymouth: Lexington Books
(5)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Hidayati, M. (2009). Using process approach to improve the ability of intermediate-level students in writing argumentative paragraphs. Unpublished research paper of English Education Department of University of Malang
Isolatus, P. (2008). Presidential debates: functional theory and finnish political communication culture. Stockholm: IAMCR Media and Global Devides Jamieson, H. K., & Birdsell, S. D. (1988). Presidential debates: the challenge of
creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press Kabbarch, J. (1987). Using Toulmin’s model of argumentation, Vol 6, No 1. Kahlos, M. (2007). Debate and dialogue .Burlington: Ashgate.
LaBossiere, M. C. (2010) 42 Fallacies. Retrived September 20, 2013, from http://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42- fallacies.pdf
Latif, S., & Nur, A. (2012). Apa bedanya debat capres Amerika dengan
Indonesia?. Retrived May 13, 2013, from
http://cangkang.vivanews.com/aff/news/read/363555- apa- bedanya - debat capres-amerika-dengan- indonesia
Merh, N. (2010). An analysis of the use of Toulmin's model of argumentation in preliminary rulings. Aarhus University
Mick, S.C. (2011).Rebuttal argument guidelines. Retrived May 13, 2013, from http://blogs.nd.edu/connie-snyder- mick/2013/03/21/hello-world/
Miller, D. (1991). “Politics” in Blackwell encyclopedia of political thought. Oxford
and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell
Murray, D. E. (2005). The ecology of leadership in TESOL. California: Anhaiem University
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. (1989). New York: Oxford University Press.
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. (2000). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pinto, R. (2010) Weighing evidence in the context of conductive reasoning. Canada: University of Windsor
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal logic, Vol.17, No.2:159-176.
(6)
Herlin Octaviani, 2014
An Analysis Of The Strengths Of Arguments Of The 2012 United States’ Presidential Debate
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Sneider, C. A. (2005). Influencing through argument. Newyork: IDBATE Press Book.
Steinhauser, P. (2012). CNN Poll: Nearly half of debate watchers say Obama won
showdown. Retrived May 13, 2013, from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/22/cnn-poll- who -won -the-debate/
Seyler, D.U. (1994). Understanding arguments: a text with readings. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
The third obama-romney presidential debate trascript. Retrived January 13, 2013 from http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-22-2012-the-third-obama-romney-presidential-debate
Thomson, A. (2002). Critical reasoning: a practical introduction. New York: Routledge.
Toulmin, E. S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, E. S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1978). An introduction to reasoning. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company
Walton, D. (2011). Conductive arguments in ethical deliberation, conductive argument: an overlooked type of defeasible reasoning, ed. J.A. Blair & R.H. Johnson. London: College Publications, 191-209.
Wellman, C. (1975). Morals and ethics, Dallas, Scott, Foresman and Company. Villata, S., Boella, G. & Torre. (2010). Argumentation patterns. Torino: University
of Turin Press
Zenker, F. (2009). Treating khun’s gap with critical contextualism. review of
william rehg, cogent science in context. the science wars, argumentation
and Habermas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Zhao, X. (2011). A Measure of perceived argument strength: reliability and validity.Virginia: George Mason University Press.