The New York Time posted a conversation between two columnists, David Brooks and Gail Collins. Brooks and Collins discuss about the performance of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich at a debate in Florida, and predict who will win the upcoming presidential election based on evaluation of their past and current achievement.
In this conversation, both of Brooks and Collins talk about their interpretation and opinions about the debate between Romney and Gingrich on Jan 23, 2012, which has happened before. According to Everything’s an Argument (Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz, 2011), forensic arguments is defined as “Debates about what has happened in the past” (P. 16) and aim to support the author’s point of argument. For example, to support the opinion that the ability of debating does not dominate a candidate to succeed in the election, Brooks cites evidence that Barack Obama won the election four years ago even if he is not good at debate, which is a forensic argument.
Instead of discussing about the previous debate, some scenarios that would happen in the future are also predicted in this conversation, which can be classified as deliberative argument. As Everything’s an Argument (Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz, 2011) pointed out that “Debates about what will happen in the future are called deliberative arguments” (P. 17). For example, Brooks predicts that Gingrich will lose support in later campaign, because the performance of Gingrich in Florida Monday night is not bellicose and fails to meet the expectation of Republicans. To make the announcement reasonable and convincing, prediction need to rely on evidence happened before, because what happened in the past will mostly affect the future evolution.