The world has progressed to the point where leaders are elected based on beliefs, values, and ideas. Most countries around the dynamic globe provide opportunity for aspiring leaders to debate before going to elections (Ruhl, 2001). A interested scholar must be asking the following questions: what is an argument? What role do arguments play in leadership, and what kinds of arguments should be used in leadership debates? An argument is the interchange of competing or conflicting points of view. In a leadership or academic setting, arguments refer to the set of reasons given with the sole purpose of persuading others to use an individual’s perspective of reasoning in judging a wrong or right.
Arguments serve several purposes of arguments with the principal ones being persuading a given audience to a specific new behavior or action and changing people’s mindsets to view different aspects from a given dimension. Numerous types of arguments exist and are applied in various professions. This paper mainly focusses on the comparison of two key types of arguments that include Dogmatic and Emergent arguments or theories. This piece presents a meta-analysis of different sources with the goal of identifying the different aspects of these two theories.
Dogmatism or Dogmatic Arguments
Dogmatism refers to the tendency of laying down arguments or principles as controvertibly true without basing on evidence or the opinions that others might have on the topic (Ribeiro & & Videira, 1998). Many scholars have in the past seen this point of arguments as arrogant or doctrinaire as they put no consideration on the relevant existing facts. However, many leaders still utilize dogmatic arguments to express their opinions that might be viewed as selfish. Different religious experts have also considered the laws used in the Catholic church as dogmatic (Anderson, 2009).
Emergent Arguments or Emergentism
Emergent arguing refers to the arguments that have their foundations on the belief of emergence. This philosophical position states that there exists a continual emergence of the mind out of the complexity of the physical brain (Sawyer, 2001). While many scholars consider the emergent theory of argument as prime, various critics have emerged claiming that emergent arguments do not yield expected fruits due to its basis on the lack of evidence. The theory of emergence believes that the whole can be analyzed basing on its constituent parts and that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. For instance, an individual might argue that while the different states of the US form the nation, the collective revenues of all the states cannot be equated to the sum that the government earns every financial year. Meaning, the properties of an element (the various states of the United States) that emerge from a system (the United States) when combined or gathered gives a different depiction of the property. The complexity behind this type of argument has shunned many scholars from utilizing it as an argumentative tool (Sawyer, 2001). Consequently, most debaters employ the previous methodology to convince their listeners to have a given standpoint.
Literature Review
As opposed to the previous modes of arguments, the success of a given perspective defense methodology will depend on learning and the use of facts and figures. Most debate audiences are bright and quick to raise concerns that they believed are not well addressed in an argument. Consequently, debaters have to adequately train, gather relevant facts, and act ethically in presenting their views to the public. One key example where a debate might influence the community is politics whereby different countries have adopted a presidential debate scheme or platforms in which aspirants explain to the electorates their principal agendas for the country. Consequently, many political analysts and scholars have devoted their time and other resources in comparing and contrasting the two primary methods utilized in debates that include the dogmatism and emergence.
Ruhl (2001), identifies dogmatic and emergent arguing as the primary foundations of the theories that deal with the argumentative process. This author states that “As long as arguers comply with a minimum co-operativity, argumentation has genuinely an epistemic interest insofar as any position agreed upon becomes agreeable, i.e., intersubjectively shared because those who did not share it have learned why it is agreeable.” The primary purpose of a debate is to provide a platform in which debaters present their views and explain to their audience why they believe that their standpoints are the beast and are worth being adopted. Ruhl (2001) purposed to explore the different examples of problematic scenarios that might require the incorporation of more than one argument type to solve. This author found that arguments range from an extreme case known as the emergent arguing to another nonextreme case referred to as the dogmatic arguing. Ruhl (2001) does not describe the methodology that he uses in drawing his conclusions but finds that bother dogmatic and emergent arguments assist in finding solutions to problematic situations. However, the methodology used in mashing the two argument types together dictates their efficacy in finding solutions.
The relevance of Ruhl’s article (2001) that it provides an overview of a typical argument environment and describes the origin of dogmatism and emergence. This piece also provides information on the origin of dogma and its background. In a nutshell, Ruhl (2001) provides a means of solving problematic scenarios using Dogmatic and Emergent reasoning. However, this piece failed to address different aspects of the research. The key goal of my research was to explore the comparisons between Dogmatic and Emergent theories of argument and to explore the mannerisms in which they are used in the different debate environments. However, the only area in this author’s piece that was the two words dogmatic and emergent manifested is in the title. The author made limited attempts to fulfil the purpose of his article. All in all, this article assists in expanding the readers’ knowledge on the different argument types and the various areas of their applicability.
Ribeiro et al. (1998) came up with an educative piece describing the applicability of dogmatism in modern cosmology. The primary goal of the authors was to explore and discuss the presence of dogmatic tendency within the modern cosmology and the existing negative influences that it has. These authors dug to the roots of dogmatic thinking and explored the previous ideologies that occurred regarding this mode of thinking. According to Ribeiro et al. (1998) the dangers of Dogmatic thinking were initially identified as early as the 1930’s. However, scientific dogmatism emerged and is utilization is widespread. Ribeiro et al. (1998) utilizes Ludwig Boltzmann’s epistemological theses to show that once nature and theoretical pluralism are embodied in any research practice in the current cosmological times, dogmatic behaviors are rendered useless and cannot be applied in any scope of the modern cosmology.
Ribeiro et al. (1998) used a meta-analysis of different pieces of literature to explore the various aspects of dogmatism and its application to modern cosmology. The primary findings of these authors were that “Scientific knowledge is best characterized by the continuous search for better, but never definitive, representations of natural phenomena,” showing that the modern cosmology requires scientists to reason from an evidence-based point of view. Therefore, dogmatism has been rendered useless in the current scientific field.
Ribeiro et al.’s source (1998) is of extreme significance to this topic of discussion. These authors expand my understanding of the applicability of the dogmatic theory with the primary focus on the modern cosmology. The piece also made me reason from another dimension with the introduction of the concept of theoretical pluralism. With the knowledge gathered on the applicability of dogmatic reasoning in the field of science, I can fully explore other fields and apply the same concepts in defining the use of this type of thinking and argument. However, the key weakness of this article is that its scope was too narrow. Ribeiro et al. (1998) only focused on the scientific field with a primary attention on Physics. Secondly, this source is outdated and does not fully describe the current modern application of theoretical pluralism and dogmatic arguments in modern cosmology. The world is dynamic, and the use of Ribeiro et al.’s perspective of reasoning (1998) is both confusing and irrelevant.
Sawyer (2001) indulged into examining the sociological aspects of the Emergence theory. This author begins his piece by admitting that the understanding of the emergent theory is difficult. Sawyer (2001) states that “Many accounts of the micro-macro link use the philosophical notion of emergence to argue that collective phenomena are collaboratively created by individuals yet are not reducible to explanation in terms of individuals.” This author also admits that the contemporary sociological applications of the theory of emergence are both unstable and contradictory. Consequently, few scholars have taken the course of exploring the concept of emergent theory. The core purpose of Sawyer’s article (2001) was to assess and clarify the contradictory and unstable properties of the emergent theory by establishing an emergent account basing on the existing philosophies of the mind. The philosophical account that these authors created is primarily utilized in the evaluation of the contradictory sociological theories. Sawyer (2001) also states that the different theories of emergence have in the past faced several unsolved issues. The article strived to identify these unsolved issues and put them in the sociological contexts. This author identified the concepts of wild disjunction, multiple realizability, and supervenience as the key components of the emergent theory that can be employed in arguing for nonreductive materialism.
The relevance of this third and last source is that it identifies the key concepts of the emergent theory that can assist debaters in founding solid debates. Sawyer (2001) managed to explore the contradictory and unstable emergent theory and was successful in defining its applicability in both philosophical and sociological dimensions. However, this article focused more on definitions than in clarifying and developing an account of sociological emergence as per the author’s objective. Therefore, this piece of literature provides my research with minimal information regarding the concepts of dogmatic vs. emergent theories.
Methods
The primary methodological type used in this research is the meta-analysis of different forms of literature regarding my research topic that is dogmatic vs. emergent theories. I used random sampling to identify these pieces of literature from the various online libraries. Most books did not have the information required to sustain the research. Therefore, I resorted to using online news websites and journal articles that gave outstanding descriptions of the different subtopics of my research. Some of the methodologies utilized in collecting and analyzing the data obtained from the field included critically interpreting the data provided from the online sources used. Google Scholar is one of the renowned sites with a multitude of peer-reviewed articles and books. Therefore, I exploited this search engine and found different articles relating to the topic of dogmatic vs. emergent theories. However, the searches failed to provide articles that analyzed the two types of argument theories together. I then resorted to searching for information regarding the two concepts differently, i.e., I looked for information regarding the emergent theory and sociological emergence then switched to dogmatism and the dogmatic theory.
The key role of research is to identify a given problem or social issue and relate it to the current social, political and economic settings. Therefore, I utilized the same methodologies (web searches) in linking the concepts of Dogmatism and Emergentism to the worlds’ fiercest debates that are the United States’ presidential debates. I utilized the different news websites such as the Guardian News, Vox News, New York News, and Business Insider to analyze the use of dogmatic vs. emergent theories in this argument. I chose Donald Trump as a key figure as he utilized these theories differently in this debate.
Analysis
Donald Trump is undoubtedly one of the world’s most tactical debaters who strives to make his audience to reason from the same dimension as his own (Engel, 2016). The three most recent presidential debates saw this individual focus on the other presidential candidate while arguing and focus less on basing his arguments on evidence and facts. The US believes in leadership and integrity or veracity in governance. Therefore, the constitution provides an opportunity for the different presidential candidates to meet the electorates and sell their agendas with the biggest platform for doing so being the national presidential debate (Allen, 2015). This debating platform has seen many candidates “digging their graves” and some being victorious to the level of winning the presidential elections. Various politician analysts have argued that the presidential debates give electorates the platform of knowing their leaders more and gauging their integrity. Only great debaters flourish and are promised success in the proceeding elections. With the various surveys pointing out that Hillary Clinton would floor her competitor Donald Trump by a landslide, the contrary outcomes of the elections sent the various analysists in the field of political science to the drawing board. Consequently, most analysts have claimed that Donald Trump utilized Dogmatic argument and emergent theories of arguing on the equal measure during the debate to woo the American voters. The truth behind this claim can only be determined by a thorough analysis of the three presidential debates.
The First Presidential Debate
This debate marked the genesis of a fierce battle between the two presidential candidates with both rivals throwing a weight of complaints against one another (Flegenheimer, 2016). Donald Trump was on the spot for his previous actions and claims being used to the advantage of his opponents. Mr. Trump argued that Hillary lacked the stamina that she could use when she became the US president (Flegenheimer, 2016). Donald also praised his temperament claiming that it was his strongest asset. Trump’s approval of Russian hacking was a key question during this discussion.
Trump’s arguments in this debate had no basis on evidence or what his primary opponent, Clinton, thought. The respondents given by this candidate can be termed as dogmatic. There is virtually no evidence provided by Donald Trump showing that Hillary Clinton lacked stamina and could not tarnish Clinton’s claims that he supported the invasion of Japan.
The Second Presidential Debate
Most political analysts believe that this debate gave the presidential candidates the opportunity of learning one another’s weakness and exploiting it in the proceeding arguments and campaigns (Wolffe, Valenti, Pennington, & Barron, 2016). Various experts had diverging opinions with most citizens believing that Donald Trump won in this second phase of the presidential debates. According to Wolffe (2016), the Hillary was not adequately prepared for this debate thereby giving Trump an upper hand. The arguments that these two candidates had can be termed as baseless and were provoking. Trump openly blamed his rival Clinton for the rise in the incidences of sexual assaults all over the country (Wolffe, et al., 2016). This candidate also blamed Hillary Clinton for paving the way for his tax evasion activities and stated that he made no mistakes in looking for the loopholes and taking advantage of them (Wolffe, et al., 2016).
A manifest fact with this discussion is that both the candidates used dogmatism with Trump exploiting this arguing technique to his advantage. No facts were provided to show that Hillary was the primary cause of the incidences of sexual assaults in the various states of the US. Also, Donald Trump had no direct evidence linking Hillary to his non-payment of tax as well as facts that pointed out that he used the existing loopholes to avoid or evade tax. Trump also dwelled less on other people’s opinions including Hillary’s. Consequently, this candidate emerged victorious in this second presidential debate.
The Third Presidential Debate
This debate witnessed the fiercest arguments with the two presidential candidates focusing on national matters for the first time. Trump and Clinton, as opposed to their cultures in the previous debates, focused less on personal attacks and more on the different policies (Lopez, 2016). The key issues that the two candidates addressed were tax, abortion, and drugs. The ‘old Trump’ could be distinguished from the new one with this candidate using facts to back his arguments. The key topic of discussion in the debate was the foreign policy whereby Trump declined to comment on the accusation that he imported cheap labor to assist in building his hotels (Lopez, 2016). Trump reasoned and argued from the perspective of a traditional Republican when addressing the issues of guns and tax policy. The discussion on abortion was the most notable of the night as Trump noted that one could rip a baby from a mother’s womb following her consent. This argument was based on logic as some scenarios would force a health practitioner to conduct an abortion. Trump added that it was the government business if a mother decided to abort (Lopez, 2016).
Trump’s arguments in this third discussion were undoubtedly made basing on the emergent theory and not dogmatism. This candidate promised the electorates of a greater country as he believed that the issues of guns, the foreign policy, abortion, tax, and the freedom of the state of mine were the building blocks of a better nation. Trump used the emergent theory that believes that the whole can be analyzed basing on its constituent parts and that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts by tackling these key issues of tax, abortion, and guns exhaustively. The emergent theory of argument bases on evidence and Tramp ensured that for the first time, he made no baseless allegations on his political rival and utilized the republican’s traditions in arguing his thoughts. In a nutshell, this third presidential debate was Donald Trump’s first to utilize the emergent theory.
Conclusion
Different individuals employ the various techniques of argument to persuade their listeners to reason from their point of view. This paper successfully presents different aspects of dogmatic and emergent theories and finds that dogmatism refers to the tendency of laying down arguments or principles as controvertibly true without basing on evidence or the opinions that others might have on the topic. The emergent theory, on the other hand, believes that the whole can be analyzed basing on its constituent parts and that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Dogmatic arguments have no basis in evidence while the emergent theory uses some pieces of evidence making it more convincing. However, most debaters incorporate the two to have an immense persuasion power. The Republican candidate had a huge promise for the nation. Trump knew the exact place of the target of the American population that would guarantee him victory in the November polls. The success of this candidate after employing the two theories in the presidential debates illustrate that the convincing power of both the theories is the same. However, the use of the emergent theory is limited due to the complexity in its comprehension.
References
Allen, C. (2015). 2016 general election debate schedule. USA TODAY. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/09/23/2016-general-election-debate-schedule/81238502/
Anderson, R. S. (2009). An emergent theology for emerging churches. Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
Engel, P. (2016). Donald Trump just outlined his foreign-policy vision for the US in a major speech. Business Insider. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-2016-4?IR=T
Flegenheimer, A. (201). Did You Miss the Presidential Debate? Here Are the Highlights. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/politics/presidential-debate.html?_r=0
Lopez, G. (2016). 3rd presidential debate highlights: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and a Fitting end to this Bizarre Election. Vox. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13322592/third-presidential-debate-highlights-trump-clinton-2016
Ribeiro, M. B., & Videira, A. A. (1998). Dogmatism and theoretical pluralism in modern cosmology. arXiv preprint physics/9806011.
Rühl, M. (2001). Emergent vs. Dogmatic Arguing. Argumentation, 15(2), 151-171.
Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Emergence in Sociology: Contemporary Philosophy of Mind and Some Implications for Sociological Theory 1. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 551-585.
Wolffe, R., Valenti, J., Pennington, K., & Barron, C. (2016). Trump v Clinton: who won the second presidential debate? | The Guardian panel. the Guardian. Retrieved 3 May 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/09/presidential-debate-reactions-trump-clinton
