Argumentative SCRIPT

The argumentative script associated with an argumentative question (an issue) is the set of positions (conclusions), arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals that each party use in debating that issue. They are available to any arguer who enters the arena and is willing to take a position on the issue.
In the media sphere, when a new issue arises, the arguments very quickly stabilize into an argument script.

The script corresponds to the state of the argumentative question. It can be implemented any number of times, in a wide variety of forums. It pre-exists and informs concrete argumentative discourses. It evolves with the emergence of new sub-questions, and the reformulation of the argumentative question that governs the script.

The argument script can be represented as an argument map.[1]

1. Argument scripts and the circumstances of the specific disputes

Argument scripts are not the only component of the actual argument. A script is essentially of a collection of arguments that are relevant to the issue, to the merits of the case, regardless of the specific circumstances of particular encounters. However, a script may also include general characteristics of the speakers involved in the debate and considerations about the conditions under which the debate takes place.
The argument “the country’s finances are in a state of crisis” is part of the script regarding refugees, as is its standard rebuttal “you lack generosity / let us be generous”.
An argument about the person, such as “You wear jewels and dare to talk about the financial crisis! » is not part of the script, the interlocutor does not necessarily wear jewels.

2. Script and rhetorical invention

According to the classical vision of rhetoric §3.1, typically adapted to the language of the courts,  arguments are discovered  by the arguer according to the technique of inventio. When dealing with established socio-political issues, as well as in all disciplines where one can refer to a state of the question, arguments are merely selected from the relevant argument script, and then reformulated. In such fields, arguments are not found, but are available to all participants from the outset.
The first task of the interested party is to review the script relevant to the issue s/he wishes to discuss, and then to play his score that is, to organize a discourse that best actualizes and amplifies the arguments he has chosen. In other words, the arguer must define and follow his path within the parameters of the script.
This conception of argumentative activity has implications for argumentation pedagogy, emphasizing first the need for carefully constructed information prior to discussion, and, second, the importance of individual expression and style in argumentation.
A perfect conclusion for a classroom debate might be the collaborative construction of an argumentative map satisfactory to both parties.

[1] A map of a portion of the script corresponding to the question “Can computers think?” can be found at web.stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/topic/phil/artclISSAFigure1.pdf (29-09-2013).