What is the Toulmin Model?

The challenge in many types of speech, particularly in original oratory, extemporaneous speaking or, of course debating, is to make a series of persuasive arguments on the given topic with limited evidence and limited preparation time. Learning a model for argumentation is extremely helpful for public speakers, debaters and writers as it allows you to use your time efficiently and effectively.

Central to this process is the Toulmin Model of Argumentation. This model of argumentation was developed by British Philosopher Stephen Toulmin, originally based on modes of argument generally found in legal arguments, and then widened out over time to have become the most widely taught model of argument.

A firm grasp of the Toulmin model is sure to increase your chances of success in public speaking as well as writing, and will improve your logical reasoning as well.

In this article we will examine the six components of the Toulmin model of constructing arguments and explore some examples of Toulmin's model in action.

The Toulmin model consists of:

1) A claim or assertion you are trying to prove.
2) Data or evidence that support the claim.
3) A warrant that links the evidence to the specific claim you want to make.
4) Backing that explains why the warrant is legitimate and rational,
5) A counterargument to the one you are attempting to prove with a built in rebuttal to this argument.
6) A qualifier that sets out the limits of the particular argument you want to make. Let’s look at each of these various parts in turn.

Toulmin Model – Claim

First, every argument begins with a claim or assertion. Though this seems simple, it can be very difficult to articulate a clear, well-constructed claim that accurately reflects the argument you are attempting to make. When you deliver your claim, it should be directly stated such that the audience or reader should have little confusion about precisely the argument you are making.

For example, let’s take a controversial US policy from the 2010s: the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”, which successive Republican Congressional leaders and Presidential candidates have vowed to repeal or reverse. You might want to make the argument that the Republican Party in the USA will not be able to repeal the law without suffering specific political consequences.

Your claim could be,

“First, Republicans will be unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act because doing so would lead to a high likelihood of individual Republican members of congress losing their seats in the next election.”

Notice, that the claim begins first with an enumeration of which argument this is in the sequence of arguments being made, in this case the “first” argument. Secondly, the key terms of the topic are spelled out in the claim rather than relying on non specific pronouns like “it” and “they.” Thirdly, the claim introduces the beginning of a reasoning process that supports the claim. Be sure to pay special attention to developing clear and compelling claims.

Toulmin Model – Data and Evidence

Second, after you establish your claim it is necessary to provide data and evidence that back up the claim. This should be obvious. The basic requirements for providing data and evidence are that the evidence be 1) recent, 2) reliable, and 3) sufficient. You want to use the most recent evidence or data at your disposal to buttress the claim that you are making. This is particularly important in extemporaneous speaking and debating since many topics deal with current events which are constantly changing and in flux.

This makes it especially important to ensure that in speech formats which permit the use of research, such as extemporaneous speaking or public forum debate, that your research files are continuously updated. It is not enough for your evidence and data to be recent, rather it must also be reliable. The most recent evidence from an unreliable source, such as a clearly biased news outlet is less likely to have the persuasive impact you hope it to have.

Finally, your data must be sufficient to support the claim at hand. Establishing the sufficiency of your evidence will be covered in more detail when we discuss warrants and backing when constructing arguments.

For now, let’s examine some examples of credible evidence that could support our claim that Republican members of congress are unlikely to repeal Obama’s Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) because of severe political costs that would result from doing so. One obvious source of data that we could draw upon are opinion polls that specific precisely the public approval rating of Obamacare. We could argue,

"A survey from the Pew Research Center found 54% of Americans approve of the Affordable Care Act -- the highest level ever recorded by Pew -- while 43% disapprove. That's up from an even split (48%-47%) in a Pew survey from December, suggesting popular backing for the law may be galvanized by the ongoing public fight over its future."

Additionally, we could point to opinion polls that indicate the popularity of particular Republican congresspeople. We could even give a more specific example by identifying the particular regions of the country where Obamacare is unpopular and connect these regions to a Republican congressperson in a particularly precarious position. This particular evidence could be challenged for its recency, reliability and sufficiency so in making our argument it is important to foreground these things.

When engaged in parliamentary debate, you cannot usually go online to research the topic unless you are getting ready for a prepared motion in a WSDC tournament. In this case, it is particularly useful to have at least some credible evidence - in your head or case file - as part of your general knowledge on the topic.

Even if you don’t know the specific percentage of people who supported Obamacare in a specific poll, you may still be aware in general terms that it is supported by a majority of the American public. And it makes the next step, the warrant, even more important in such forms of debate.

Toulmin Model – Warrant

After we have made our claim and presented some data and evidence we cannot take for granted, as too often happens when people argue, that our evidence has a strong connection to our claim. Rather than simply assuming that the audience understand the connection between the data and the claim on their own, it behooves the speaker to spell out this connection for them. This requires the speaker to justify that one can infer the truth of the assertion based upon the data presented.

From our example above we indicated opinion polling that suggests that public approval for Obamacare is at an all-time high. In order to connect this data to our claim about the unlikelihood of Obamacare being repealed by the Republican-led Congress, we would need to make a further connection between public opinion polling and the decisions of political leaders. This could be done with the use of further data or evidence.

We could argue, for example, that according to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR);

“the statistical effects of public opinion on Senate roll call voting have varied by issue, with some evidence for greater responsiveness in homogeneous rather than in heterogeneous states.”

This means that public opinion on issues is often reflected in the votes of senators, particularly in areas with little diversity. We could further add evidence that Republican politicians are more likely to come from homogenous districts.

The important thing to remember about the Toulmin analysis of argumentation here, is that you need to make an argument for why your data or evidence supports the claim at hand.

Toulmin Model – Backing

The fourth element of the Toulmin model of argument we will explore here is backing. Backing simply refers to providing additional support and justification for the warrant. In the warrant we provided above, backing would provide more support, for example, that Republican districts tend to be more homogenous.

For example, we could argue that,

“Frank Fahrenkopf, RNC chairman from 1983 to 1989 described the GOP as "clearly the homogenous political party" compared to the Democrats.” We could point to further demographic data to support this. According to a Gallup Poll, “Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 89% of Republican self-identifiers nationwide in 2012.”

This provides strong evidence that the Republican party is homogenous. We have to be careful not to get too far away from our original claim and to make sure that we have the best possible evidence to bolster it.

Let’s take a look at what our final argument looks like with claims, data, warrant and backing:

"First, Republicans will be unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act because doing so would lead to a high likelihood of individual Republican members of congress losing their seats in the next election. According to a survey from the Pew Research Center, 54% of Americans approve of the Affordable Care Act -- the highest level ever recorded by Pew -- while 43% disapprove. That's up from an even split (48%-47%) in a Pew survey from December, suggesting that supporting the law may be galvanized by the ongoing public fight over its future. This indicates shifting momentum in favor of the Affordable Care Act that would be difficult for Congress to oppose.

Additionally, congress makes decisions on the basis of public opinion polls. According to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the “statistical effects of public opinion on Senate roll call voting have varied by issue, with evidence for greater responsiveness in homogeneous rather than in heterogeneous states.” Even Frank Fahrenkopf, RNC chairman from 1983 to 1989 described the GOP as "clearly the homogenous political party" compared to the Democrats.”

Additionally, according to a Gallup Poll, “Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 89% of Republican self-identifiers nationwide in 2012.” This means that public opinion polls will be even more relevant in Republican areas and with greater support for Obamacare reflected in opinion polling, it is highly unlikely that congress will act to repeal."

Toulmin Model – Qualifier

Once you establish or construct a strong argument complete with a clear and robust assertion, evidence or data that supports the assertion and a strong line of evidenced reasoning connecting the data to the assertion, you cannot simply assume that the audience supports you fully. It is best to anticipate potential skepticism concerning the veracity of your arguments and address this skepticism in a proactive manner.

There are two primary ways to do this identified by Stephen Toulmin. The first of these two additional components is to provide a qualifier to your argument. The second is to anticipate specific counter-arguments and provide a response to them in advance.

First, the qualifier. Qualifying your arguments means that you are being honest and open about the particular limits of the argument you are making. This allows your claims to be seen as more credible and having a nuanced understanding of the issue about which you are speaking. Few issues are so clear-cut that there are not reasonable arguments that could be made to support a number of different perspectives. Foregrounding and anticipating these arguments that could be made to oppose or limit your thesis will go a long way toward persuading the audience over to the truth of your position. The qualifier shows that you are serious about your argument.

Let’s take the example of the healthcare debate that we discussed above. A qualifier to this argument would acknowledge that:

"While perhaps public opinion polls do not dictate congressional voting on all issues but healthcare is a particularly important issue because it affects everyone. While the Senate often votes against public opinion they are not likely to do so when it comes to healthcare because of how public this issue is and the fact that this is likely, unlike other issues, to be the main voting issue of the public when the next election comes around."

Here what we are doing is qualifying our argument by acknowledging that the links between public opinion and congressional voting are not always constant and that sometimes there are exceptions to this, that healthcare is an important issue about which the connection is likely to hold.

It may seem counterintuitive, but qualifiers add strength by answering potential questions our audience may have, and acknowledging that our logic has a limit - making our case more persuasive.

Toulmin Model – Counterargument

Finally, according to the Toulmin process, a powerful way to conclude our argument is by pre-empting and answering a potential counter-argument. In debate when debaters trade speeches back and answer the arguments of their opponents, while extemporaneous speeches are single speeches without opposing views - but the basic foundation is the same in both formats.

This does not mean you cannot make an engaging argument by simply letting your audience know a potential rebuttal to your argument that may be in their minds and provide a response. Even if your audience is not thinking about a particular counter-argument, by presenting them with one you are making it appear as though you have command of the issue and that you are drawing conclusions based upon a thoughtful understanding of both sides and careful consideration of opposing arguments.

Let’s look at what a counter argument might look like in our healthcare example. We might say:

"Now, one could argue that because the Republicans have been promising to repeal Obama’s healthcare law for the past 8 years, ever since the law was established, they would look weak and foolish to now suddenly give up on this. This could cause Republican voters to view their representatives as wishy-washy and would be an admission that they were wrong all along on this issue. However, the reality is that time has given the public more of an opportunity to understand the complexity involved and the lack of better alternatives.

The opposition to Obamacare was rooted in mischaracterizations and misinformation about implications of the law which the public has now come to understand as false. This overshadows the long opposition to Obamacare on the part of many GOP supporters. New information leads to new conclusions. Therefore it is likely that the law will not be repealed."

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation – Conclusion

In conclusion, not every speech requires you to proceed through all six steps of the Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Nonetheless, a firm understanding of what it is and what it means will help you to construct logically sound arguments as well as helping you build your credibility with listeners, judges and opponents.

Whatever model of argumentation you study, the foundation remains the same; make clear claims, back them up with reasoning and, where possible, evidence; anticipate objections and pre-empt opposing arguments. If you do this, and follow the model set out by philosopher Stephen Toulmin, your arguments will become stronger and your speeches and writing more persuasive – no matter the format.