discussion

This article deals with the discussion as an essay form. For the discussion as an administrative court procedure, see the public hearing .

The discussion is an essayistic text form in which the core facts ("places" or topoi ) of a situation are worked out and presented in order to enable the reader to form a judgment. In a discussion, you can find your own point of view on a question, derive a factual judgment and justify this argumentatively with evidence / examples.

The discussion in the sense of a topic is a branch of literary rhetoric and its procedure was already presented in detail by Aristotle in his work Topik .

In addition to the interpretation of literary texts , the discussion is the most important form of the school essay .

General procedure of discussion

The preparation of a discussion follows the classic rhetoric and consists of four work steps:

1. Material collection ( inventio ): The topic is penetrated and its various aspects, including the question, are recognized and finally put together as a material collection. W-questions serve as a classic aid for determining the topoi : Who did what, how, when, where, with what, why and for whom? .
2. Planning the structure ( dispositio ): The topoi found are presented within the three sections introduction, main part and conclusion.
   1. In the introduction ( exordium / prooemium ) the reader is introduced to the topic and his interest is aroused by making relevant references. In addition, key terms are introduced and explained.
   2. In the main part, the reader should be well informed on the one hand and finally be convinced by the author's chains of arguments. This is done by presenting the arguments one after the other in a structured order ( propositio ). Each individual argument is treated from three points of view:
      1. Thesis ( narratio ): Description of the facts
      2. Evidence ( argumentatio ): either to confirm the credibility of the facts presented ( confirmatio ) or to refute the opposing arguments ( confutatio ). The theses put forward are made plausible by examples, corroborated by evidence and supported by information sources.
      3. Conclusion ( conclusio ): Presentation of the consequences of the acceptance / non-acceptance of an argument or presentation of the interests of the parties involved ( cui bono )
   3. Conclusion ( peroratio ): In the plea, after all arguments have been discussed, a summary is given, an opinion is presented and, if necessary, an outlook on further debates is given.
3. Decoration ( elocutio ): In this step, considerations are made as to how the ordered material should be expressed linguistically, e.g. B. Choice of style and decorative elements.
4. Writing down ( actio / exercitatio ): Finally, the material collected in sketches is carefully written down to create a finished essay. The raw material should be cleared of errors ( emendatio ) and you can concentrate and reduce its quantity by selection if necessary ( delectus ).

Discussion types

Discussions (also called problem essays) can be divided into two types: the text-based discussion and the free discussion (also called a reflection essay).

Text-based discussion

A text-based discussion assumes a text template that deals with a contentious issue. With this form, the problem being dealt with is first named, the text template developed and the train of thought of the text summarized. This is followed by a presentation of the theses represented in the text and an explanation of the author's arguments. This is followed by a discussion of the line of thought in the text, in which the "position statement" is supported by further arguments or argued invalid.

A text-based discussion consists of an introduction, a main part and a conclusion. The main part is divided into two parts: the analysis of the content, in which the core ideas, the intention and the linguistic-stylistic means are shown, and the critical examination of the text. The analysis of the content or the linguistic-stylistic means takes place as in an interpretation . In addition, it deals with the text ( verify , falsify ). The discussion is the actual part of the text-based discussion. The aim of the discussion is to bring in as well-formulated factual arguments, value arguments, and authority arguments as possible. In the final part, your own position is summarized and a judgment or recommendation is made regarding the text.

Free discussion

A free discussion or reflection essay discusses a topic independently of a text template. Two types can be distinguished here: the linear (or ascending) and the controversial (or dialectical) discussion. This is characterized by a subdivision of the main part into a pro and a contra part.

During the controversial discussion

• Inference (therefore / so-that phase)
• Reference to the thesis (i.e. phase, possible decision)

Questions for this variant of the discussion can be broken down into pairs of terms such as “opportunities and risks”, “curse and blessings” and the like. represent (example: opportunities and dangers of the Internet).

Building a dialectical discussion

Preliminary work

Material collection for the main part

Since the thesis and antithesis are to be supported by arguments in the main part of a discussion , it is advisable to sort the pros and cons as preliminary work. The collection of materials can also take the form of a mind map . A structure can then be developed from this in a second step . When setting up a discussion, one should orientate oneself on the classic three-way division "Introduction - main part - conclusion". The main part can in turn be divided into a pro and contrablock. Each block of the main part is introduced by a (main) thesis, which takes up the topic or the question in a polarizing way (for or against) and formulates it as an assertion. The arguments for your own position are put at the end of the main part. When presenting the opposite position, one starts with the strongest argument, when presenting one's own position with the weakest argument.

Structural features

introduction

In the introduction the topic is explained in principle and attention is drawn to the importance of the problem. The task of the introduction is first of all to introduce the topic or question, as formulated in the heading. Such an introduction is possible by connecting to

• a current occasion
• a study
• own experiences
• a media report
• a statistic
• a (provocative) quote
• a current discussion

It is essential to work out the contradiction in the matter or in the question, which at the end of the introduction leads to the repetition of the actual question or topic of the discussion. An introduction can consist of a term definition, a quote, a personal experience, background information or a historical overview. At a minimum, the introduction must explain the general meaning of the subject. Arguments are reserved for the main part.

Main Part I: Antithesis

The first part of the main part usually begins with the listing of the antithesis (also counter-thesis) to the opinion favored by the author (which does not correspond to his opinion). You always start with the strongest argument and end with the weakest.

Main part II: thesis

In the second part of the main part, the thesis favored by the author is formulated. Here you always start with the weakest argument and end with the strongest, as the reader is most likely to remember the last-mentioned arguments.

argumentation

The theses are followed by the individual arguments that each support one of the two theses (pro or contrathesis). In order for an argument to be convincing, it must be coherent. The connection to the topic or the question must not be lost and the respective main thesis must be substantiated. It is also important to stop with the strongest argument so that the reader can best remember the most important argument. In addition, the argumentation should be interesting so that the reader does not lose interest.

An argument consists of an assertion that is clearly formulated. In a second step, this claim is justified, in the third step, the claim and justification are substantiated by evidence or examples (from daily life or from personal experience). A conclusion to the assertion is assumed in the upper school. The argument is rounded off by a return. The regression always takes up the introductory thought.

Suitable documents are:

• current statistical data
• Reference to scientific research results
• Reference to press releases (also possible as a quote)
• Reference to generally known facts
• Notice of possible consequences
• Proof of incorrect premises of the counter-argument
• Reference to generally recognized values ​​(norms)
• Reference to authorities

Evidence is not in itself an argument. They only make sense when they are placed in the context of the argument and it has become clear in what respect they support the argument. Examples must be chosen in such a way that they can illustrate an (abstract) argumentation context and make it plausible. The clarity of the evidence is secondary, as the recipient has already been convinced by the reasons.

Main Part III: Synthesis

A dialectical argument leads to a synthesis that should contain a proposed solution. Usually a compromise (middle ground) is an option. Alternatively, a specific thesis can be restricted from the argumentation. The reasoning should clarify or prove the usefulness of the proposed solution for the synthesis.

In a linear discussion, the synthesis can be omitted.

Enough

In the final part, the author makes a decision or takes a personal position, which can include an evaluation of the arguments. One or two arguments can be taken up again. Arguments are classified as important, unimportant or less relevant based on personal experience or attitudes; a personal way is found to deal with the problems or dangers presented, which may have been raised in the introductory question and argued in the main part.

At the end, a prognosis or a hope can be mentioned or a position can be taken that points beyond the topic in the narrower sense. Ideally, the conclusion contains a synthesis of the two antitheses of the main part and takes a mediating position of both-and-or relativizes the arguments presented antithetically from a higher point of view (see dialectics ). One can also bring a possible solution to the problem into the end.

Possible structure of a dialectical discussion

introduction

Leads to the topic and usually ends with the formulation of the question

Bulk

Part I : for or against, begins with the opposite thesis to the point of view favored by the author of the discussion

Argument 1

Document 1

possibly example 1, example 2 etc.

Argument 2

Document 1

possibly example 1, example 2 etc.

etc.

Part II : contra or pro, begins with the counter-thesis to the point of view formulated in Part I.

Argument 1

Document 1

possibly example 1, example 2 etc.

Argument 2

Document 1

possibly example 1, example 2 etc.

etc.

Alternatively, the pro and contra arguments can follow one another

Part III : Synthesis (suggested solution)

Enough

Here you weigh up the arguments against each other, come to personal assessments of the arguments put forward and, if necessary, formulate a personal opinion, an outlook or the like.

literature

• Aristotle: Topic. translated and commented by Tim Wagner and Christof Rapp. Philipp Reclam jun., Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-15-018337-5 .
• Duden Abitur knowledge German. 3rd, updated edition. Duden Schulbuchverlag, Berlin / Mannheim / Zurich 2011, ISBN 978-3-411-02709-5 , pp. 32–35.
• Heinrich Lausberg: Elements of literary rhetoric. Max Hueber, Munich 1990, ISBN 3-19-006508-X .
• Heinrich Lausberg: Handbook of literary rhetoric. Max Hueber, Munich 1960.
• Reading, presentation, understanding 12/13. Part 2, Cornelsen-Hirschgraben, Berlin 1990, ISBN 3-454-22690-2 , pp. 76-128.
• Reading, presentation, understanding 12/13. Part 2: Teacher's Manual. Cornelsen-Hirschgraben, Berlin 1993, ISBN 3-454-22695-3 , pp. 61-88.
• My big essay book. Königs Learning Aids, German 7. – 10. Klasse, Bange, Hollfeld 2016, ISBN 978-3-8044-1586-7 , pp. 154-198.
• Heinrich F. Plett: Introduction to rhetorical text analysis. Helmut Buske, Hamburg 1991, ISBN 3-87118-082-3 .
• Spellings. A workbook for German lessons at secondary level II. Klett, Stuttgart 1984, ISBN 3-12-350200-7 , pp. 98–154.
• Uta Wernicke: Gestalten. Reading and writing: linguistic action in theory and practice. Volume 1, Verlag Handwerk und Technik, Hamburg 1983, ISBN 3-582-01425-8 , pp. 160-165.

Web links

• Tips for Writing a Discussion (Fun Learning)
• How do you write a discussion?
• Very extensive information on writing a discussion essay and many specific student examples (TeachSam)