The central question of a theory of ARGUMENTATION is how to distinguish GOOD arguments from BAD arguments.

When framed like this, argumentation is a normative discipline — it tells us how we OUGHT to reason, what "good reasoning" is supposed to look like.

It's important to distinguish this normative question from the descriptive question of what makes arguments persuasive.

An argument can be persuasive but loaded with fallacies. And an argument can be logically compelling with plausible premises and still fail to persuade an audience.

The videos in this course are some of the oldest, dating back to when I was teaching critical thinking courses in a philosophy department.

The focus here is almost entirely the normative question. I started thinking more deeply and critically about the descriptive question in later years.

But the normative question is absolutely central for critical thinking. The concepts introduced here provide a vocabulary for talking and thinking about good versus bad reasons. Think of it as an essential step in developing argument literacy. 

Issues of persuasion do arise, of course. They show up especially in the discussion around the difference between "truth" and "plausibility", and in the discussion of the criteria for an argument to be "strong". 

But the deeper question of what makes an audience adopt a "pro" or "con" attitude toward an argument is something that psychologists have studied far more than philosophers.