Stages of Argumentation

Introduction

Peter Suber has identified four stages off sophistication in argumentation. We have adapted this staging and provided illustrative examples from the health literature. These stages are well represented in the health literature and in media reports about health care.

For the purposes of illustration, consider the controversy surrounding breast self examination. A study by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care concluded that there was evidence to not teach women to examine their breasts and in fact, some harm may result from such teaching. The responses to the study incorporate all the stages of argumentation.

Stage 1

To say nothing in support of your claim. To make an assertion without argument.

This is the absence of argument. If we need another term for it, we can call it dogmatism.
Stage one arguments are akin to simple declarations of belief. For example:

Vitamins are good for you.
Breast self-examination saves lives.

Stage 2

To offer a positive or negative argument, but not yet both. To argue one-sidedly.

Stage 2 arguments can be positive or negative. What's distinctive about them is that they are not yet both. They simply attest to one side or perspective of a controversy. Consider the following:

You should vote for Richard because he will balance the budget.
You should vote against John because he has spent time in prison.

Stage 3

To offer both a positive and negative argument. To argue two-sidedly.

We're still not demanding sufficiency, strength, or relevance, though we are now demanding two-sidedness. In this case, considerations, both for and against a particular perspective are articulated. This form of argumentation is an advance on the previous forms, but still is insufficient. Suber gives the following examples:

We should regulate handguns because that would reduce the number of accidental and impulsive gun killings every year (positive). The argument that handguns are needed in self-defense is question-begging; if there were fewer guns, there would be less need to use them in self-defense (negative).
We should not regulate handguns because that would violate the liberty of citizens guaranteed under the Second Amendment (negative). We should make handgun ownership easier rather than more difficult, because an armed society is a safe society (positive).
Vote for Smith because she will appoint good Supreme Court Justices (positive). Don't vote for the other guy because he accepts money from big corporations (negative). .

Stage 4

To offer positive and negative arguments, to anticipate objections to those, and to respond to those objections. To argue two-sidedly and responsively.

Responsiveness takes two forms. A positive argument is responsive if it seeks out objections and responds to them. A negative argument is responsive if it seeks out rebuttals or defenses and responds to them. To respond to an objection or rebuttal is to take note of it, to assess its strength, and to articulate the reasons why they do not suffice to overturn one's position or to extract a concession one is not already making.