We do it everyday. Whether we’re aware of it or not, we have to prove to others that what we’re telling them is not a bunch of “BS” that’s coming out of our mouthes but is actually legitimate. We back our arguments up by using aspects of argumentation as we examined in class last week. We can consciously construct an argument that has data, warrant, and a claim depending on what the persuader is trying to convince the audience of and also depending on what the audience already accepts as true (the level of dispute). I think it is naturally our way of constructing our arguments in this way also although sometimes there is a grey area when trying to pick out the warrant and the claim (data is usually fairly easy to identify).
Campbell’s ideas of extending the definition of rhetoric to apply to more issues than simply speech and persuasion have really unlocked my ideas of rhetoric.
Next time I’m aware that argumentation is a part of my rhetoric or is someone else’s I will attempt to apply the “D”, “W”, and “C” and see how it has an effect on the persuasion element of the argument.