Most of the readers of this blog are likely also to be teachers of argumentation theory in some or other way. If this is true of you, I’m wondering: what are your favorite argumentation theory textbooks? With which ones have you had the best experiences in the classroom? Relatedly, what makes an argumentation theory text a good one for classroom use?
In the interest of full disclosure, I tend to vary my choices quite a bit, so I can’t say that I have a definite overall favorite. That said, there are bits of some books that I really like, and that have influenced the way that present certain topics. My short list includes the first three chapters of the latest edition of Logical Self Defense on identifying and interpreting arguments. On evaluative criteria for arguments I really like Trudy Govier’s treatment of what she calls the “ARG” conditions in chapter 3 of A Practical Study of Argument. Chapters 1 and 5 of Douglas Walton’s Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation I’ve found to work really well for issues concerning dialogues and the relationship between dialogue and argument. The treatment of speech acts and conversational implicature given in chapter 1 of Understanding Arguments, by Fogelin & Sinnott-Armstrong is also one that I’ve found very helpful for students.
That’s my short list, anyway. As is easy to see from those choices my approach largely comes from within the informal logic tradition. I’d be especially interested to learn what readers who teach in the rhetorical tradition or from a pragma-dialectical orientation use.
RAIL 
I teach Critical Thinking, a course for first year psychology and arts students.
I use Nigel Warburton’s Thinking from A to Z and Douglas Walton’s Informal Logic. Warburton is not bad for definitions and examples, students like it, but Walton is superb.
Thanks for the comment! Those are both great choices. I used to use Warburton’s book as a recommended text in all my classes. (I teach philosophy.) I’ve used Walton’s Informal Logic in the past too, and really liked it a lot. For those who may not know, a new edition of it was just released in 2008. It’s the first update since the original came out in 1989. I loved the original book, but I think the new edition is even better.
I believe that Groarke & Tindale is one of the best. It’s one of the few that actually includes developments in recent Argumentation Theory.
Would that be Good Reasoning Matters?
I’m a student and we work with Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation and Presentation (Frans H. van Eemeren,
Rob Grootendorst, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans), 2002.
It’s ‘user friendly’ and it helps you to get a good grip on pragma-dialectics, but I think it evades many spiny problems which could be discussed in depth.
*you can find it on gigapedia.com 🙂
I agree with Michael about the Groarke and Tindale text, Good Reasoning Matters.
As a composition teacher, I can’t quite justify having students buy an argumentation textbook proper, unless it’s a small, cheap, supplement to other texts, but I do refer to the Groarke and Tindale text a great deal when preparing for class.
I especially like their chapters on “Implicit Argument Components,” “Strong and Weak Arguments,” and “Ethotic Schemes.” (Tindale, btw, has what I think is a wonderful discussion of ethos in either Acts of Arguing or Rhetorical Argumentation [can’t recall which off the top of my head, and they’re in my office while I write this from home]).
Great blog, btw!
Thanks Patrick! And thanks for the comment. It’s been a few years since I looked at Good Reasoning Matters. I’m going to have to give the latest version a read.
[…] * I got the idea to look at Douglas Walton’s Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach from the following blog, “Reader’s Choice: Your Favorite Textbook with which to Teach Argumentation Theory.” […]
Lest readers think that there is nothing new under the sun where these textbooks are concerned, I urge them to check out “Reason in the Balance” by Mark Battersby and Sharon Bailin. In this book Balin and Battersby set out what they call an “inquiry-based” model of critical thinking. You can get a sense of what this means by consulting the abstract on the AILACT textbook page here:
http://ailact.mcmaster.ca/text_abstracts.html.
Here is a link to the publisher’s page for the book:
http://www.mcgrawhill.ca/highereducation/product/0070073414/reason+in+the+balance++an+inquiry+approach+to+critical+thinking/
As I’m currently reading it in preparation to write a review of it I’ll not say more except to say that I think it’s unlike anything I’ve yet seen. Interesting stuff. Do check it out!