AN ANALYSIS OF THE STRENGTHS OF ARGUMENTS OF THE 2012 UNITED STATES’ PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE : The Case Of Barrack Obama And Mitt Romney.

(1)

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

(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

(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

(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.

(5)

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.

(6)

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)

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)

(11)

1

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

(12)

2

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

(13)

3

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,

(14)

4

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

(15)

5

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

(16)

6

(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

(17)

7

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

(18)

8

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

(19)

9

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

(20)

10

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

(21)

30

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

(22)

31

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

“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

(24)

33

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

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

(25)

34

Table 3.1 above displays the primary elements of the transcription No.2

presents the additional elements of the transcription No.2 including backing

element.

Table 3.2 The Additional Elements of Transcription No. 2

Additional

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

(26)

35

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

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

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

(29)

59

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

(30)

60

conduct research related to the credibility, in-depth study is required along with

(31)

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)

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

(33)

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.