In this blog post, I will simply discuss what type of argument I think my public debate will assume, based on what goals I want to achieve through it, its rhetorical situation, and how I want to format it.
 |
| Moyle, Dan "Choices" 2 January 2014 via flickr.com. Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) License. |
I say this because, in thinking about how I would construct my argument, I would need a starting point that is already participating in my controversy since I'm going to put a new spin on perspectives on AI. Thus, proposal and causal arguments are already not fitting as they don't refer to another piece of argument. With a reference to begin with, I could begin my argument by covering what ground the controversy currently resides on and what points are used in its debate before I present my own view, thus making the contrast between current arguments and my own unique argument much more distinct. However, I don't think a refutation argument would fit the style of my argument because my argument presents a completely new side to the AI controversy and thus wouldn't be able to address every point in an opposing argument fairly without compromising what I want to convey.
This leaves me with an evaluative argument, which I believe will work well as I can expound upon the pro-AI position in Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" by discussing the artistic potential of AI technology.
Although, I must admit I am open to the position argument, which I have not yet mentioned because I think it could also fit what I want to say in my argument and how I want to convey my message. While the position argument does not reference another piece of argument, it would allow me to directly defend a pro-AI position with my own unique perspective on AI and art.
At this point in time, I will have to decide between an evaluative or position argument for my public debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment