Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory curs 2 (Argumentation and Discussion)

8/7/2019 Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory curs 2 (Argumentation and Discussion)

1/14

Fundamentals ofFundamentals of

Argumentation TheoryArgumentation Theory

Argumentation and DiscussionArgumentation and Discussion


2/14

Argumentation andArgumentation and

DiscussionDiscussion A critical discussionA critical discussion = an ideal type of argumentative= an ideal type of argumentative

discourse aimed at resolving a difference of opinion bydiscourse aimed at resolving a difference of opinion bydetermining whether the standpoints at issue ough to bedetermining whether the standpoints at issue ough to beaccepted or not.accepted or not.

4 stages: the confrontation, the opening, the argumentation,4 stages: the confrontation, the opening, the argumentation,and the concluding stageand the concluding stage

(in practice)(in practice) the argumentative discourse corresponds onlythe argumentative discourse corresponds onlypartly with this modelpartly with this model

An analysis of an argumentative discourse must examine toAn analysis of an argumentative discourse must examine towhat extent the discourse can be reconstructed as a criticalwhat extent the discourse can be reconstructed as a criticaldiscussion.discussion.


3/14


DiscussionDiscussion1.1 Resolving a difference of opinion1.1 Resolving a difference of opinion

A DO is resolved as soon as one of the twoA DO is resolved as soon as one of the twoparties revise their original positionparties revise their original position

DOs are resolved:DOs are resolved:

(1)(1) -- the doubting party abandons his/her doubtsthe doubting party abandons his/her doubts

(2)(2) -- the doubting party retreats from his/her standpointthe doubting party retreats from his/her standpoint


4/14


DiscussionDiscussion(1)(1) At first I wasnt sure whether I agreed with you, but I have toAt first I wasnt sure whether I agreed with you, but I have to

admit you are right.admit you are right.(2)(2) Now that I have heard all your reservations, Ive come to thinkNow that I have heard all your reservations, Ive come to think

that my standpoint isnt so strong after allthat my standpoint isnt so strong after all

Ending an active disagreementEnding an active disagreement resolving DO ?resolving DO ?

resolvingresolving a DO: if two parties come to hold the same position on thea DO: if two parties come to hold the same position on thegrounds of rational argumentation:grounds of rational argumentation:

-- both parties adopt the same standpointboth parties adopt the same standpoint-- both parties begin to question the standpointboth parties begin to question the standpoint

settlingsettling a DO: a disagreement is simply set asidea DO: a disagreement is simply set aside


5/14


DiscussionDiscussion settlingsettling a DO: a disagreement issimply set aside:a DO: a disagreementissimply set aside:

-- Intimidatingor forcingthe other party into submissionIntimidatingor forcingthe other party into submission-- Layingthe matter before a third party who servesasa judgeLayingthe matter before a third party who servesasa judge

and decideswho is rightand decideswho is right

-- Decidingthe winner by drawing lotsDecidingthe winner by drawing lots

-- Puttingthe matter to a vote and lettingthe majority decidePuttingthe matter to a vote and lettingthe majority decide

(2) Duringthe health care debate, the ItalianPrime Minister gothisway by(2) Duringthe health care debate, the ItalianPrime Minister gothisway byforcingthe issue to a vote, which the socialistparty lost. Clearly, however,forcingthe issue to a vote, which the socialistparty lost. Clearly, however,notall ofthe socialistmembersofthe Cabinetare convinced ofthenotall ofthe socialistmembersofthe Cabinetare convinced ofthedesirability ofthe new policy measures.desirability ofthe new policy measures.


6/14


DiscussionDiscussion1.2 A Model of Critical Discussion1.2 A Model of Critical Discussion

Argumentative discussionArgumentative discussion

> dealing with a DO in a rational way> dealing with a DO in a rational way

= a discussion in which argumentation is employed in such a way as to= a discussion in which argumentation is employed in such a way as todetermine to what extent a given standpoint is defensibledetermine to what extent a given standpoint is defensible

vs. Informative discussion: serves primarily to convey informationvs. Informative discussion: serves primarily to convey information

= critical discussion: aimed at resolving a DO > takes place between a= critical discussion: aimed at resolving a DO > takes place between aparty who defends a certain standpoint (= the protagonist) and aparty who defends a certain standpoint (= the protagonist) and aparty who challenges this standpoint (= the antagonist)party who challenges this standpoint (= the antagonist)


7/14


DiscussionDiscussion Critical discussion: 4 stagesCritical discussion: 4 stages

1.1. The confrontation stageThe confrontation stage: the parties establish that they: the parties establish that theyhave a DOhave a DO

-- nonnon--mixed DO: one partys standpoint is not immediatelymixed DO: one partys standpoint is not immediatelyaccepted by the other party, but is met with doubt or criticismaccepted by the other party, but is met with doubt or criticism

-- mixed DO: the other party advances the opposite standpointmixed DO: the other party advances the opposite standpoint

2.2. The opening stage:The opening stage: the parties decide to resolve the DOthe parties decide to resolve the DO> they assign the roles of protagonist and antagonist +> they assign the roles of protagonist and antagonist +they agree on the rules of discussion and on the startingthey agree on the rules of discussion and on the startingpointspoints


8/14


DiscussionDiscussion3. The argumentation stage:3. The argumentation stage: the protagonistthe protagonist

defends his standpoint against the criticism of thedefends his standpoint against the criticism of the

antagonist by putting forward arguments to counterantagonist by putting forward arguments to counterthe antagonists objections or to remove thethe antagonists objections or to remove theantagonists doubts.antagonists doubts.

4. The concluding stage:4. The concluding stage: the parties assess thethe parties assess theextent to which the difference of opinion has beenextent to which the difference of opinion has beenresolved and in whose favourresolved and in whose favour


9/14


DiscussionDiscussion1.3 The Ideal Model and Argumentative Practice1.3 The Ideal Model and Argumentative Practice

-- realreal--life argumentative discussions vs. the ideal modellife argumentative discussions vs. the ideal model

(3)(3) The Light Athletic Association leadership recently met to discuss the future of athletics. This is undoubtedly a praiseworthyThe Light Athletic Association leadership recently met to discuss the future of athletics. This is undoubtedly a praiseworthyeffort. Dick Loman gave an enthusiastic report of this meeting and invited anyone not present to join in the discussion. I ameffort. Dick Loman gave an enthusiastic report of this meeting and invited anyone not present to join in the discussion. I am

answering his call by expressing my opinion in this article.answering his call by expressing my opinion in this article.Part of the discussion concerns whether or not to further centralize the training of athletes. And this is the point I wouldPart of the discussion concerns whether or not to further centralize the training of athletes. And this is the point I would liklikeeto speak to.to speak to.For years, centralized training has bothered meNot because of.but primarily because of..For years, centralized training has bothered meNot because of.but primarily because of..And so I repeat: do away with centralized training.And so I repeat: do away with centralized training.

-- Opening stage: announcing his status as protagonist > very little time spend on theOpening stage: announcing his status as protagonist > very little time spend on theopening stage; discussion rules and other starting points are often taken for granted andopening stage; discussion rules and other starting points are often taken for granted anddo not require explicit mentiondo not require explicit mention

-- Confrontation stage: the author puts forward the standpoint that centralized trainingConfrontation stage: the author puts forward the standpoint that centralized training

should be done away withshould be done away with-- Argumentation stage: complete (not repeated here on account of space)Argumentation stage: complete (not repeated here on account of space)-- Concluding stage: explicit (even though the author speaks for himself)Concluding stage: explicit (even though the author speaks for himself)


10/14


DiscussionDiscussion realreal--life argumentative discussions often depart from the model:life argumentative discussions often depart from the model:

-- The parties do not go through all the four stages of the discussion stage or do notThe parties do not go through all the four stages of the discussion stage or do notrespect their order (e.g., 3)respect their order (e.g., 3)

-- One party may declare that the DO has been decided in its favour before theOne party may declare that the DO has been decided in its favour before the

argumentation stage has even been completedargumentation stage has even been completed-- The parties may realize that they have failed to clearly identify what exactly theyThe parties may realize that they have failed to clearly identify what exactly they

disagree on so that it becomes necessary to go back to the confrontation stagedisagree on so that it becomes necessary to go back to the confrontation stage-- Elements of the different stages that are indispensable for the resolution of the DO mayElements of the different stages that are indispensable for the resolution of the DO may

be missingbe missing

These discrepancies do not diminish the usefulness of the model:These discrepancies do not diminish the usefulness of the model:

-- the model may be athe model may be a tool for identifying where realtool for identifying where real--life argumentative discussion goes wronglife argumentative discussion goes wrong::it makes it possible to identify what necessary elements are missing or inadequately representedit makes it possible to identify what necessary elements are missing or inadequately represented

-- the model may bethe model may be an instrument for analyzing a discussion in a constructive manner:an instrument for analyzing a discussion in a constructive manner: one mayone mayidentify more easily the elements that are only implicitly present in the discussion + the variousidentify more easily the elements that are only implicitly present in the discussion + the variouselements of the discussion can be analyzed in a way that clarifies their role in the resolutionelements of the discussion can be analyzed in a way that clarifies their role in the resolutionprocessprocess


11/14


DiscussionDiscussion1.4 Argumentation in an Implicit Critical Discussion1.4 Argumentation in an Implicit Critical Discussion

An example of explicit critical discussionAn example of explicit critical discussion

(4) Paula: It seems to me its to my advantage that I have never done anything(4) Paula: It seems to me its to my advantage that I have never done anythinglike this before.like this before.Jack: Thats not an advantage if you ask me.Jack: Thats not an advantage if you ask me.Paula: Why not?Paula: Why not?Jack: You first explain why you think its an advantage, and then Ill tell youJack: You first explain why you think its an advantage, and then Ill tell youwhy I think its not.why I think its not.Paula: Well, as far as Im concerned, its pretty simple: the fact that I have noPaula: Well, as far as Im concerned, its pretty simple: the fact that I have no

experience means that I approach it with no preconceived notions. And for aexperience means that I approach it with no preconceived notions. And for ascreen test thats important.screen test thats important.Jack: Its not at all an advantage to do a screen test with no experienceJack: Its not at all an advantage to do a screen test with no experiencebecause you have no idea what to do to present yourself in the mostbecause you have no idea what to do to present yourself in the mostfavourable light. And thats really tricky.favourable light. And thats really tricky.


12/14


DiscussionDiscussionImplicit Critical Discussions: only one of the parties participatesImplicit Critical Discussions: only one of the parties participates

Even if the other party does not participates, his point of view is stillEven if the other party does not participates, his point of view is still

taken into account:taken into account:

-- The protagonist explicitly refers to the potential objections of a realThe protagonist explicitly refers to the potential objections of a realor imaginary antagonistor imaginary antagonist

(5) There is no other country in the world where women are as well integrated into the(5) There is no other country in the world where women are as well integrated into thearmy as in Norwayarmy as in Norway and dont go bringing up the case of Israel, because in Israeland dont go bringing up the case of Israel, because in Israelwomen dont fight in the front lines. Have you ever seen women soldiers in one of thosewomen dont fight in the front lines. Have you ever seen women soldiers in one of thoseintifadah photos?intifadah photos?

-- An example of Implicit Critical Discussion: the monologue defending aAn example of Implicit Critical Discussion: the monologue defending astandpointstandpoint a onea one--way dialogueway dialogue


13/14


DiscussionDiscussionWith implicit discussions the party putting forward their case need to presentWith implicit discussions the party putting forward their case need to presenttheir argumentation + incorporate the other stages of the discussion processtheir argumentation + incorporate the other stages of the discussion process(confrontation, opening, conclusion) + point out potential doubts and known(confrontation, opening, conclusion) + point out potential doubts and knownobjections :objections :

1.1. Outset: they need to establish that a difference of opinion exists orOutset: they need to establish that a difference of opinion exists orthreatens to arise (confrontation stage)threatens to arise (confrontation stage)

2.2. They have to make it clear that they are prepared to resolve the DO byThey have to make it clear that they are prepared to resolve the DO byfollowing certain rules for argumentative discussions; they may brieflyfollowing certain rules for argumentative discussions; they may brieflymention these rules and any starting points (opening stage)mention these rules and any starting points (opening stage)

3.3. They present their own argumentation, perhaps referring to the views ofThey present their own argumentation, perhaps referring to the views ofan opposing party (argumentation stage)an opposing party (argumentation stage)

4.4. They need to assess to what extent the difference of opinion has beenThey need to assess to what extent the difference of opinion has beenresolved by their argumentation (concluding stage)resolved by their argumentation (concluding stage)


14/14


DiscussionDiscussionAn example of Implicit Critical DiscussionAn example of Implicit Critical Discussion

(6) A lot of people have been saying recently that penalties for(6) A lot of people have been saying recently that penalties forcriminals should be stiffer. I dont agree with this and I willcriminals should be stiffer. I dont agree with this and I willexplain why. I will first review all the arguments Ive heard inexplain why. I will first review all the arguments Ive heard infavour of stiffer penalties and show why they are unsound.favour of stiffer penalties and show why they are unsound.[][]

I believe I have conclusively shown that stiffer penalties forI believe I have conclusively shown that stiffer penalties forcriminals dont make up any sense. This is a matter on whichcriminals dont make up any sense. This is a matter on whichreasonable people need no longer disagree.reasonable people need no longer disagree.

Documents

Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory curs 2 (Argumentation and Discussion)