Toulmin's model. An argument generalized.

Let's keep this short and sweet.

Joking, I'm sorry people. That just won't happen here, so please bear with me.

So we were introduced to the Toulmin model a while ago, and I must admit, it's a rather interesting concept.

It generalizes the structure of sound arguments.

Now, generalization is a wicked word to use, becasue you are implying that such a 'generalization' can be applied to a whole sleuth of situations and occasions, no two completely alike.

So this time I'll be asking,

'Is the Toulmin model a valid method of human argument generalization?'

Claim : The Toulmin's model is not a valid method of human argument.

Grounds : There are simply too many variables that come into play; truth, falsified information, human error, differance in conception, culture, general un/acceptance of ethic decisions, era, and so on.

Warrant : The Toulmin Model is a generalization of sound humane argument. Generalization means that such a model is based off recurring patterns that can be observed. However, patterns in this world are never exactly alike; there is at least a small amount of discrepancy which may compromise the overall integrity of a pattern as an identical copy to itself.

Backing : Even if there are two identical scenarios, very nearly identical to the smallest details, there must be al least one differance since if there are no differances the occurances are the one and the same, which does not qualify as two scenarios.

Qualifier : The definition of 'identical' is simply 'the same down to the utmost details, with no differance whatsoever'.

Rebuttal : The Toulmin's Model does not account for the probability factors within this universe. The Model simply provides as with a guideline, if you will, on the general direction of human argument which it may adopt.

Besides, you're using the Toulmin's Model to argue that it is in fact, not true.

Ever hear of irony?