Considering Types

     The only viable argument for my public argument discussing robots and humans would be a position argument. A position argument is meant to "develop your own defenses of this issue." This would fit perfectly because my goal with this public argument is to discuss robotics, but then to defend how I feel that they will help human life in the future.  A casual argument would not be the correct way to go about my idea because I am not really "argue[ing] for one cause of one set of causes."  There really is no cause of an issue or a cause of anything in the robotics argument, so a casual argument would not be the most sufficient way to go. An evaluative argument could potentially work, but I feel as thought the issue with robotics isn't necessarily a "policy, idea, [or] solution to a problem." The issue having to do with robots is more of one that is a futuristic issue, and I am trying to raise awareness on what could potentially happen.  I am not "analyze[ing] a particular problem," thus, I don't think that a proposal argument would work very well for my goals either. The same thing goes for the refutation argument. I am not refuting any idea, I am simply raising awareness and slightly portraying my own feelings for the issue.  All in all, the best way of going about my public argument is to use a position argument.  I will take the position that I believe in, I will create a "pro/con argument" and I will be sure to show what I believe and how that will effect others. The other types of argument do not make much sense for the argument concerning robots' involvement in human life in the future.