Argumentative Essay: The Art of Argumentation

The art of argumentation is not as easy as it seems. Many people might think that arguing effectively is simply speaking out your mind or conversing an opinion. It's far beyond that. In writing argumentative essays, many writers often forget that the primary purpose of an argument is to "win" it - to be able to sway the readers to accept their point of view, not mere argue illogically.

Here are some features that argumentative essays have to contain in order to be effective:

1. Have a well-defined, controversial issue. Readers must understand what the issue is and what is at stake. The issue must be arguable enough – a topic that people have diverse opinions on.

2. Must take a clear side or stand. This is the thesis statement of the essay – the heart of the argument. Thus, it must be clear and concrete. And apparently state the position it takes regarding the issue of argument.

3. Must present compelling and realistic arguments. An argumentative essay does not simply assert an opinion - it presents an argument that is backed up by data that can convince readers that the opinion is valid. This data can consist of data, statistics, testimony of others or articles and books. The writer of an argumentative essay must also seek sources that are non-biased.

4. Must use a reasonable tone. Essay writers must always assume that the reader can disagree or be skeptical. It is important, therefore, that the tone employed is reasonable, professional, and trustworthy.

Carrying out an argument is not that different with writing it all down. Argumentation is an art, it requires skill – and writing argumentative essay is a skill of efficiently presenting logical points to win the readers' “yes” vote.

Types of Papers: Argument/Argumentative1

While some teachers consider persuasive papers and argument papers to be basically the same thing, it’s usually safe to assume that an argument paper presents a stronger claim—possibly to a more resistant audience.

For example: while a persuasive paper might claim that cities need to adopt recycling programs, an argument paper on the same topic might be addressed to a particular town. The argument paper would go further, suggesting specific ways that a recycling program should be adopted and utilized in that particular area.

To write an argument essay, you’ll need to gather evidence and present a well-reasoned argument on a debatable issue.

How can I tell if my topic is debatable? Check your thesis! You cannot argue a statement of fact, you must base your paper on a strong position. Ask yourself…

How many people could argue against my position? What would they say?

Can it be addressed with a yes or no? (aim for a topic that requires more info.)

Can I base my argument on scholarly evidence, or am I relying on religion, cultural standards, or morality? (you MUST be able to do quality research!)

Have I made my argument specific enough?

Worried about taking a firm stance on an issue?

Though there are plenty of times in your life when it’s best to adopt a balanced perspective and try to understand both sides of a debate, this isn’t one of them.

You MUST choose one side or the other when you write an argument paper!

2

Don’t be afraid to tell others exactly how you think things should go because that’s what we expect from an argument paper. You’re in charge now, what do YOU think?

Do… Don’t…

…use passionate language …use weak qualifiers like “I believe,” “I feel,” or “I think”—just tell us!

…cite experts who agree with you …claim to be an expert if you’re not one

…provide data, evidence, and statistics to support your position

…use strictly moral or religious claims as support for your argument

…provide reasons to support your claim

…assume the audience will agree with you about any aspect of your argument

…address the opposing side’s argument and refute their claims

…attempt to make others look bad (i.e. Mr. Smith is ignorant—don’t listen to him!)

Why do I need to address the opposing side’s argument?

There is an old kung-fu saying which states, "The hand that strikes also blocks", meaning that when you argue it is to your advantage to anticipate your opposition and strike down their arguments within the body of your own paper. This sentiment is echoed in the popular saying, "The best defense is a good offense".

By addressing the opposition you achieve the following goals:

illustrate a well-rounded understanding of the topic

demonstrate a lack of bias

enhance the level of trust that the reader has for both you and your opinion

give yourself the opportunity to refute any arguments the opposition may have

3

strengthen your argument by diminishing your opposition's argument

Think about yourself as a child, asking your parents for permission to do something that they would normally say no to. You were far more likely to get them to say yes if you anticipated and addressed all of their concerns before they expressed them. You did not want to belittle those concerns, or make them feel dumb, because this only put them on the defensive, and lead to a conclusion that went against your wishes. The same is true in your writing.

How do I accomplish this?

To address the other side of the argument you plan to make, you'll need to "put yourself in their shoes." In other words, you need to try to understand where they're coming from. If you're having trouble accomplishing this task, try following these steps:

1. Jot down several good reasons why you support that particular side of the argument.

2. Look at the reasons you provided and try to argue with yourself. Ask: Why would someone disagree with each of these points? What would his/her response be? (Sometimes it's helpful to imagine that you're having a verbal argument with someone who disagrees with you.)

3. Think carefully about your audience; try to understand their background, their strongest influences, and the way that their minds work. Ask: What parts of this issue will concern my opposing audience the most?

4. Find the necessary data, evidence, quotes from experts, etc. to refute the points that your opposition might make.

5. Carefully organize your paper so that it moves smoothly from defending your own points to sections where you argue against the opposition.

4

How to Organize Your ArgumentAuthor: Bob Finegan

In his 1959 book The Uses of Argument, philosopher Stephen Toulmin analyzed the components of effective argumentation. Toulmin's analysis yielded one of the most useful formulas for organizing arguments. The first three components of the Toulmin argument are methods you use any time to you try to convince someone using an assertion combined with a “because” statement.

The Big Three: Claim, Data and WarrantClaim: This is the thesis or central point you’re trying to prove. For instance, maybe your laptop was stolen from your dorm room and you want to argue that your university should install security cameras in residence halls. According to the Toulmin method, your assertion that cameras should be installed is the argument’s claim.

Data/Evidence: This is the evidence you put forward to support your claim. The truth of your claim might not be immediately apparent to your audience, so you need evidence to persuade them your claim is true. In this case you’d assert that the cameras should be installed because they would deter theft and make it easier for campus security to catch the thieves or recover stolen property. The theft deterrence and enhanced ability to catch thieves that the cameras would offer is the data, or evidence, that the claim is true.

Warrant/Interpretation Toulmin’s third component, the warrant, is an explanation of how the data supports your claim. Sometimes, as in the

5

example above, the connection between the claim and the warrant is obvious, so you don’t need to state it. But in many cases, the evidence won't speak for itself in terms of clearly supporting your claim. In such cases you'll need to provide detailed analysis of HOW your examples prove your thesis. Also, when your warrant includes additional claims (or sub-arguments), you'll need additional evidence to support those claims. In this case, you’d want to do research and find data showing that cameras in residence halls actually can deter theft or lead to apprehension of robbery suspects.

Supporting Cast: Backing, Counterclaim and QualifierThese supporting components of the Toulmin Method make your argument stronger with more detailed defense and anticipation of audience disagreement.

Backing: This component is an extension of the warrant—additional use of evidence and logic to back up the explanation of how your data supports your claim. When you argue that your school should install dorm security cameras, your audience may not be aware of conditions that make the cameras necessary. So you’d want to explain the background that has created such a need: “In the fall semester, six laptops were stolen from Pencader Residence Hall alone, and the student lounge in Frost Hall was vandalized. Investigations of these thefts and vandalism have yielded no suspects.”

Counterclaim/Rebuttal: Since some of your readers may have objections to your main claim or supporting points, you’ll want to head off those objections. You do this by stating a counterclaim or counterargument and then offering a rebuttal—that is, a compelling argument against the objection. For instance, you could head off

6

disagreements this way: “Some may object that tuition and housing costs are already very high, and purchase of extra security equipment would only raise such costs. But installing cameras in dorms would raise residential tuition by less than $30 a year, which is a small price to pay for preventing the theft and vandalism of student property.” If you don’t include the counterclaim and soundly refute it, you won’t be able to persuade readers who have that objection to your argument.

Qualifier: The qualifier component has a function similar to the counterclaim and rebuttal; it’s an effective way of preventing or dealing with objections. If one of your claims seems too strong, general or absolute, it may be less persuasive. So you use the qualifier to modify, limit, or qualify your claims—this should make your claims more precise or accurate. Qualifying statements use words such as sometimes, possibly, may, and perhaps for points on which there’s less certainty, and words like often, probably, or many when the writer is more confident about her assertion and its consequences. In the argument about dorm security cameras, you might qualify your claim this way: “Installation of dorm security cameras may not deter campus robbery completely or help to catch every campus thief. But the evidence shows that they often aid in tracking down the perpetrators, and sometimes even lead to recovery of stolen property.”

CLAIM

REASON REASON REASON

7

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

data data data data

counterargument counterargument counterargument

Sample #1

The Faceless Teacher

by Dennis Gardner, Writing Tutor

8

The Internet is here to stay. Whether one lives in a backwoods shack or Silicon Valley, the potential of online communication cannot be ignored. In facing the twenty-first century, a fearless inventory of the role that the World Wide Web will play in global culture must be taken. This “phantom resource,” where web sites can shift and vanish like ghosts, should not lend itself to widespread application without careful examination of the specific functions it will be utilized to perform. The Internet is an entity without a master, and censure and discretion on the Web are left to the responsibility of the individual publisher. This means a student searching the vast fields of information that have flowered on-line may find pay dirt or fertilizer. Overzealous use of computers, even in innocence, to ease the burden of solid research in favor of convenience or for the sinister purpose of cutting costs, will reduce learning from a creative process to a point-and-click procedure, effectively diminishing students from social-learners to a cyber-tribe of hunters-and-gatherers relying on the ability of machines and the rote memorization of monitors’ displays.

The blank countenance of the computer screen, the faceless teacher, is a frightening prospect of education’s on-line future. Information is present as print, yet the medium of transference is missing. The student may be receptive and the information relevant; however, learning takes place not by passive observation but in a dynamic whirlwind of uncertainty and intent. A student enters the classroom to learn, and another human being must provide the nuance, the animation, and the conscious feedback--in short, the simple bioactivity--to stimulate a student’s mind. The professor provides another lifetime of experience to contrast with the student’s own personal reality. This interaction alone breaks the constraints of personal bias and helps to form a skill vital to critical thinking: objectivity. In a formal classroom, the informality of the social scene is left outside the door and a new discipline of rhetoric and discussion is acquired. The human teacher, while not infallible, can explain different solutions to a single problem, demonstrate objectivity and understanding, and illustrate alternate approaches to obstacles. The computer can calculate and display, but a teacher can calculate and devise.

9

Innovation is the ability to employ creative methods to solve a problem. How does one get it? Confronting problems directly and working through them is the only way. Education supplies not just raw data but also the strategies for dealing with that raw data, the template for forming this information into ideas by shaping it with innovation, and eventually the arena to use these weapons in challenging specific problems. Typing a command into a search engine or deleting an errant pornographic advertisement from a screen does not teach or even require critical thinking or innovation on the part of the student. Lessons hide in the process of learning--the cross-referencing, the questioning that is the lifeblood of the dialogue, and the discipline so important in the search for knowledge--not in the simple instant gratification in the click of a mouse. The ease of information acquisition provides the student with plenty of sources but hinders the development of a critical and flexible frame of reference to interpret this wealth of material. The computer can show but cannot teach. The student is left alone in a sea of information without a means of propulsion.

If the student seems the scapegoat, portrayed as dull-witted or lazy, this is unintentional. Though “virtual education” is only a keystroke away, and these are possibilities, not inevitabilities, the Internet is powerful, and with power comes the potential for abuse, by the teachers themselves as well as the students. As the Web gives pupils the option to decrease human involvement in their education, institutions may choose to use the Web as the primary classroom forum in the quest to save money. The equation E=mc2 can also be employed when examining a College or University’s financial strategy. Substitute “$” for “E,” manpower for “m,” and leave “c” as it is to represent “time” squared. The amount of time faculty members work multiplied by the size of the university’s staff equals money exiting from that institutions’ bank account. Time equals money, but money saved does not equal comparable education. It is vital that quality face-to-face education wins out over cost-cutting measures.

Machines work well with machines and people work best with other people. The human race is composed of a web of social animals. Human contact is essential for the development of quality minds. However, there are prospective students

10

who, due to uncontrollable forces, find that a Web course is their only means of education. In this unfortunate circumstance, the concession must be given that any education at all is preferable to ignorance. But these on-line courses must be offered with caution and should not become the norm.

The web can be an aid to education in the way that a calculator is an aid to mathematics. With all of the speed and number crunching ability of a calculator, it would be highly difficult to learn algebra directly from this device. In the same respect, the World Wide Web is not a means to an end. It is not the magnificent force that is the human intellect. The mind is humanity’s greatest asset and its refinement is humanity’s greatest achievement. The evolution of such a device should not be left to anything less than its equal. The intangibles involved in the shaping and growth of human consciousness--the excitement of sharing knowledge, the drive to communicate in the most effective way, the value of having a person take a personal stake in the education of an individual-- are without parallel. In the complex chemistry of education, the computer is just a tool. The true energy and force is in the experiment itself; the teacher is the catalyst; and the student is the reaction.

Sample #2

11

Cry, Wolf

by Ella Berven

An Argumentative Research Paper forRoane State Community CollegeDecember 1995

Winning Essay for the Beulah Davis Outstanding Freshman Writer Award.

Three little pigs dance in a circle singing "Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf?"

Little Red Riding Hood barely escapes the cunning advances of the ravenous wolf disguised as her grandmother.

Movie audiences shriek as a gentle young man is transformed before their eyes into a blood-thirsty werewolf, a symbol for centuries of the essence of evil.

Such myths and legends have portrayed the wolf as a threat to human existence. Feared as cold-blooded killers, they were hated and persecuted. Wolves were not merely shot and killed; they were tortured as well. In what was believed to be a battle between good and evil, wolves were poisoned, drawn and quartered, doused with gasoline and set on fire, and, in some cases, left with their mouths wired shut to starve (Begley 53). Convinced that they were a problem to be solved, U.S. citizens gradually eradicated gray wolves from the lower 48 states over a period of 25 years.

Today many people are convinced that the elimination of the gray wolf was not only an error, but also a detriment to the quality of life in this country. There has been a public outcry to rectify the situation created by the ignorance of our ancestors. However, in seeking to address a situation created by the human compulsion to control nature, it is crucial to discern how much human interference is necessary. Human control must be tempered by respect and

12

restraint. Programs designed for the protection and restoration of wildlife must reflect deference for the natural order rather than dominance over it.

The consequences of human actions involving the elimination of the gray wolf have been especially acute in Yellowstone National Park, where the lack of a natural predator has resulted in the overpopulation of bison, deer, and elk. According to Sharon Begley of Newsweek magazine, "Absent a natural predator, thousands of the ungulates have starved during tough winters, and there has been no selection pressure to keep deer fast and moose powerful" (53).

Another issue is more subtle. As Ms. Begley points out, "The wolf has been the only native animal missing from Yellowstone" (53). In one of the few places where the wildness of the west could be preserved, the wolf's absence leaves a big hole. In a world filled with skyscrapers, subdivisions, and superhighways, human beings yearn for the wolf's untamable majesty.

In 1995, it is obvious that the hatred and fear which fueled the elimination of the gray wolf stemmed from a gross misunderstanding of wolves and their behavior. Cultural myths picturing wolves as scheming, aggressive beasts plotting to pounce on innocent victims do not reflect the truth. In reality, wolves are elusive creatures who keep to themselves. The wolf's social structure is much like ours. They live in family units called packs consisting of a mated pair, young pups, and older offspring. It is through the intricate relationships and interactions within the pack that offspring learn how to live as adult wolves. As the environmentalist Charles Bergman points out, "Wolves are intensely social animals, living in packs that are structured in rigid hierarchies. In the chain of power each wolf has a defined place on a ladder of dominance and submission" (3l). The entire pack works together according to position to raise and nurture the pups, teaching them a highly sophisticated system of communication used "for expressing their status relative to each other" (Bergman 31). Also, from parents and older siblings, young wolves learn not only how to hunt, but what to hunt as well. Wolves are trained early to go after certain prey and leave others alone. Since their prey is usually larger and stronger than they, wolves are taught specifically to hunt the weak and sick in order to avoid injury.

13

Information given in Friends of the Forest describes the similarity between humans and wolves. This publication states, "Like humans, some wolves stay with their families until they die, others leave the pack during adolescence in search of uninhabited territory and a mate" (1-2). Unlike humans, wolves instinctively control their population. The number in a pack rarely exceeds twelve and is determined by the availability and size of prey in their territory.

Faced with the consequences of hasty actions to eliminate the wolves, as well as increased knowledge about their behavior, the U.S. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, giving full protection to the gray wolf. In Section 1531 of the Act, Congressional findings state that since certain species of wildlife have been threatened with extinction, "the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction" (United 1, 2).

However, many believe that protection has not been enough. In January 1995, the Department of the Interior flew 29 wolves from Canada to Idaho's River of No Return Wilderness Area and to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. Fifteen were released directly into the Idaho area, and the rest were put in pens in Yellowstone, scheduled to be released after an acclimation period of 6 to 12 weeks. This program to reintroduce the gray wolf into the lower 48 states provides for fifteen more wolves to be relocated each year for the next three to five years (Begley 53).

Critics of the program have raised a number of concerns. First of all is the apprehension of ranchers regarding the possible loss of livestock. Wolves have been absent from Yellowstone for 60 years. Although some statistics claim that "Less than 1% of the sheep and cattle living in wolf range in Canada are killed by wolves annually," others tell a different story. According to the policy director of the National Wildlife Institute, "In Canada, 41 percent of livestock found dead have been killed by wolves" (qtd. in Richardson 30). The difference in these statistics is alarming. Obviously, statistics can be expressed in a variety of ways

14

depending on what point one is trying to prove. However, the fact remains that wolves do, at least occasionally, prey on livestock.

In addition to their concern for livestock, ranchers fear the possibility that, to help ensure the wolf's survival, wildlife managers will fence off thousands of acres now used for grazing. This could lead to the shutdown of ranches, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs.

Finally, ranchers know that they have very little recourse if the wolves prey on their livestock. They are allowed to shoot a wolf caught in the act of killing a sheep or cow if the animal belongs to them. However, it is very difficult to be in the right place at the right time to catch a wolf in a kill. It is even more unlikely that a rancher would witness the kill of his own animal. Yet the penalty for defending a neighbor's property is the possibility of up to one year in prison and $l00,000 in fines (Richardson 30).

Another problem critics point out is the exorbitant cost of implementing the reintroduction program. Estimated at $65,000 per wolf, the federal government will spend up to 13 million dollars to helicopter lift 200 wolves over the next five years (Richardson 28, 30). At a time when budget cuts are affecting food, housing and medical care for the needy, it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Even certain environmentalists have questioned the advisability of capturing and relocating wolves. Recently, a lawsuit was filed by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund stating, "the grey wolves have been migrating steadily south from Canada for years. Some have already reached Montana, and wolf packs are expected to settle in Yellowstone in about thirty years on their own initiative" (Richardson 28). But some wildlife biologists say that 30 years is too long to wait. They want to reduce Yellowstone's overpopulated bison and elk herds now. These biologists also want to study wolves before they settle in naturally. However, as Richardson states, "Taxpayers might argue that, for $65,000 per animal, the Fish and Wildlife Service could afford to send the biologists on weekly junkets to Alberta for wolf observation" (30).

15

If assurances could be made that this program would work, perhaps the cost could be more easily justified. However, there are inherent problems in capturing and relocating wolves successfully. Even biologists in favor of the program admit that the number one challenge is to overcome the natural tendency of wolves to try to get home. The only solution to this dilemma is to pen the animals up for a period of time until they get used to their new surroundings. Unfortunately, whenever wolves are penned, there is a danger that they will lose some of their wildness. But such measures have already been necessary in the case of one of the wolf families in Yellowstone. Following the illegal killing of the dominant male in one of the packs, a recent update reports:

The alpha female from the defunct Rose Creek pack remains in the Rose Creek wolf enclosure with her eight pups. The pups are healthy, and have been vaccinated against about everything a canine can get. It is hoped that by fall (when they will likely be released), they will be big enough to fight off the coyotes. I suspect their winter mortality will be high, since they have had no opportunity to learn to hunt. (Maughan)

In an effort to help the wolves form viable packs, biologists hope to solve the other problem that concerns them, "the tendency of a stressed wolf to go it alone" (Carpenter 15). A consequence of moving wolves from their habitat is that their social structure breaks down. In an interview with Dr. Marcella Cranford, proponent of wolf relocation, veterinarian and expert on wolf behavior, she explained, "Lone wolves don't make it. They survive as a family or they don't survive at all" (n.p.). A result of the breakdown is that "mates separate and some abandon pups in their haste to return to familiar turf" (Carpenter 15). Biologists believe that in order to form viable packs, they must capture wolves of different ages. The assumption is that when they calm down, the captured wolves will establish a new pack. It is evident from biologists' concerns that wolves not only are intelligent creatures, but also have ties to family and fear of change, as humans do.

The process used to capture wolves and relocate them in Idaho and Yellowstone has attempted to address these concerns. In November 1995, the

16

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service paid fur trappers $2,000 each to use their special talent for hunting down wolves (Begley 53). This talent included using neck snares "equipped with 'stops'" which would prevent the wolves from being killed (Neimeyer 13). Mr. Neimeyer in International Wolf further explains, "Any live wolf restrained by a neck snare was quickly immobilized with drugs injected with a jabstick" (13). Radio collars were then slipped around the animals' necks and these "Judas wolves" (Neimeyer 13), as they have been called, were followed back to the pack where agents selected the wolves of their choice for transport to Yellowstone and central Idaho. The sedated wolves were then locked in traveling cages. Each cage measured no more than 2 feet by 3 feet by 4 feet (Begley 53). Unfortunately, due to unexpected litigation, the wolves were forced to remain in these cages for more than 24 hours. In the case of the wolves bound for Idaho, they endured more than 80 hours in their crates (Johnson 17).

Given the elusive nature of wolves and the strong ties whichbind them to their own pack, all these measures seem invasive and extreme. Such techniques are often necessary in attempts to save animals from extinction. However, the gray wolf is in no such peril. Although the number of wolves in the lower 48 states is minuscule, 60,000 roam the ranges of Canada and about 7,000 thrive in Alaska (Richardson 30). Even the proponents of the reintroduction program admit that moving wolves to Idaho and Yellowstone has nothing to do with "saving wolves." In a recent Congressional hearing, Renee Askins, Executive Director of the Wolf Fund, testified in favor of the plan. She explained that the restoration of wolves would not "rescue us from our economic or ecological troubles, but neither will their presence contribute to them" (Askins 16-17). Ms. Askins claimed that the significance of returning the wolf to Yellowstone resided in its power as a "deeply and profoundly symbolic act" (17). She told the House Committee on Resources:

The story of this conflict is the story of how we view ourselves in relation to animals, whether we can replace the assumption of "dominion" that has been so destructive to us and the natural world with a world view that recognizes that we live in a state of reciprocity with the birds and the beasts--that we are not only the product of nature but also part of it. Our attitudes toward wolves and

17

our treatment of them cut to the very marrow of how we view our relationship to the natural world. (17)

If the driving motivation for the reintroduction of wolves into Idaho and Yellowstone is the symbolic act of restoring a relationship of respect and cooperation with nature, the actions of capture and relocation do not fit the symbol. Capture shows no respect for the highly developed social structure of the pack. Relocation denies the wolf's natural tendency to seek new territory when its own territory is overpopulated. The action appears to be more representative of a different kind of "dominion" rather than reciprocity between humankind and the animal kingdom.

With the best of intentions, it is all too easy for human beings to cross the line between necessary concern and unnecessary control. The environmentalist and author, Charles Bergman, makes this point in his book,Wild Echoes:

For all the pure motives of most of our wildlife managers--and I honor and respect their good intentions--wolf control nevertheless derives from the same world view that has enabled Americans to dominate nature wherever we have gone. Humans are superior to nature. If we no longer try to conquer or eliminate wolves, we at least try to control them. (29)

The majestic gray wolf--skillful predator, nurturing family member--has been misunderstood to the point of endangerment. Fear, hatred and the need to control the wolf's untamable wildness created an environment in which slaughter was not only acceptable, but advocated. There is no doubt that human beings bear responsibility for the protection of these magnificent creatures. However, the awe and admiration which have replaced the fear and hatred have not removed the human need to control. When this need to control results in tactics which are invasive and which disregard the very nature of the wolf itself, the danger is that human interference will unintentionally diminish the very wildness environmentalists seek to preserve.

Helpful word choices18

Supporters Opponents

Proponents Opponents

Those in favour of … Those opposed to …

Defenders of … Critics of …

Advocates of … Objectors

Pro-… (e.g. Pro-abortionists) Anti-… (e.g. Anti-abortionists)

say that …

argue

claim

maintain

assert

contend

allege

insist

contend

suggest

point out

19