Fundamentals of Fundamentals of Argumentation Argumentation TheoryTheory

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion A critical discussionA critical discussion = an ideal type of = an ideal type of

argumentative discourse aimed at resolving a argumentative discourse aimed at resolving a difference of opinion by determining whether the difference of opinion by determining whether the standpoints at issue ought to be accepted or not.standpoints at issue ought to be accepted or not.

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

(in practice) – the argumentative discourse (in practice) – the argumentative discourse corresponds only partly with this modelcorresponds only partly with this model

An analysis of an argumentative discourse must An analysis of an argumentative discourse must examine to what extent the discourse can be examine to what extent the discourse can be reconstructed as a critical discussion.reconstructed as a critical discussion.

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

A DO is resolved as soon as one of the two A DO is resolved as soon as one of the two parties revise their original positionparties revise their original position

▼▼DOs are resolved: DOs are resolved: (1)(1) Elementary DOs - the doubting party abandons his/her Elementary DOs - the doubting party abandons his/her

doubtsdoubts(2)(2) Mixed DOs - the doubting party retreats from his/her Mixed DOs - the doubting party retreats from his/her

standpointstandpoint

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion(1)(1) At first I wasn’t sure whether I agreed with you, but I have At first I wasn’t sure whether I agreed with you, but I have

to admit you are right.to admit you are right.(2)(2) Now that I have heard all your reservations, I’ve come to Now that I have heard all your reservations, I’ve come to

think that my standpoint isn’t so strong after allthink that my standpoint isn’t so strong after all

Ending an active disagreement ↔ resolving DO ?Ending an active disagreement ↔ resolving DO ?

► ► resolving resolving a DO: if the two parties come to hold the same a DO: if the two parties come to hold the same position on the grounds of rational argumentation:position on the grounds of rational argumentation:

- both parties adopt the same (+/-) standpoint- both parties adopt the same (+/-) standpoint - both parties begin to question the standpoint- both parties begin to question the standpoint

►►settling settling a DO: a disagreement is simply set asidea DO: a disagreement is simply set aside

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion settling settling a DO: a disagreement is simply set aside:a DO: a disagreement is simply set aside:

- Intimidating or forcing the other party into submissionIntimidating or forcing the other party into submission- Laying the matter before a third party who serves as a Laying the matter before a third party who serves as a

judge and decides who is rightjudge and decides who is right- Deciding the winner by drawing lotsDeciding the winner by drawing lots- Putting the matter to a vote and letting the majority Putting the matter to a vote and letting the majority

decide:decide:

(2) During the health care debate, the Italian Prime Minister got his way (2) During the health care debate, the Italian Prime Minister got his way by forcing the issue to a vote, which the socialist party lost. Clearly, by forcing the issue to a vote, which the socialist party lost. Clearly, however, not all of the socialist members of the Cabinet are convinced however, not all of the socialist members of the Cabinet are convinced of the desirability of the new policy measures.of the desirability of the new policy measures.

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

To be able to deal with a difference of opinion in a rational way, there needs to be an argumentative discussion (= a discussion in which argumentation is employed in such a way as to determine to what extent a given standpoint is defensible)

vs. vs. Informative discussionInformative discussion: serves primarily to convey : serves primarily to convey informationinformation

Obs. 1. In real-life discussions, informative and argumentative Obs. 1. In real-life discussions, informative and argumentative elements elements are often combined. are often combined.

2. When the discussion is not simply aimed at informing 2. When the discussion is not simply aimed at informing sb. about sb. about sth., it is best to view it as an argumentative sth., it is best to view it as an argumentative discussion. discussion.

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion argumentative discussion

a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion

takes place between a party who defends a certain (+/-) stdp, the protagonist, and a party who challenges this stdp, the antagonist > during the discussion, protagonists try to convince antagonists of the acceptability of their stdps, while the antagonists keep raising doubts and objections

Obs. – when the antagonist counters the stdp of the protagonist with an opposing, he/she becomes the protagonist of the opposing stdp.

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion A critical discussion aimed at resolving a DO proceeds A critical discussion aimed at resolving a DO proceeds

through 4 stages:through 4 stages:

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

> non-mixed DO: one party’s standpoint is not > non-mixed DO: one party’s standpoint is not immediately accepted by the other party, but is met with immediately accepted by the other party, but is met with doubt or criticismdoubt or criticism

> mixed DO: the other party advances the opposite > mixed DO: the other party advances the opposite standpointstandpoint

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

> in a mixed DO there are two protagonists and two antagonists> in a mixed DO there are two protagonists and two antagonists

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion3. The argumentation stage: 3. The argumentation stage:

> > the protagonist defends his standpoint against the the protagonist defends his standpoint against the criticism of the antagonist by putting forward arguments criticism of the antagonist by putting forward arguments to counter the antagonist’s objections or to remove the to counter the antagonist’s objections or to remove the antagonist’s doubts.antagonist’s doubts.

4. The concluding stage: 4. The concluding stage:

> > the parties assess the extent to which the difference of the parties assess the extent to which the difference of opinion has been resolved and in whose favouropinion has been resolved and in whose favour

> if the protagonist withdraws the stdp, the DO > if the protagonist withdraws the stdp, the DO is resolved in favour of the is resolved in favour of the

antagonistantagonist

> if the antagonist abandons his/her doubts, > if the antagonist abandons his/her doubts, the DO is resolved in favour of the the DO is resolved in favour of the

protagonistprotagonist

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

- real-life argumentative discussions vs. the ideal model real-life argumentative discussions vs. the ideal model

(3) (3) The Light Athletic Association leadership recently met to discuss the future of The Light Athletic Association leadership recently met to discuss the future of athletics. This is undoubtedly a praiseworthy effort. Dick Loman gave an athletics. This is undoubtedly a praiseworthy effort. Dick Loman gave an enthusiastic report of this meeting and invited anyone not present to join in 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 the discussion. I am answering his call by expressing my opinion in this article.article.Part of the discussion concerns whether or not to further centralize the Part of the discussion concerns whether or not to further centralize the training of athletes. And this is the point I would like to speak to.training of athletes. And this is the point I would like to speak to.For years, centralized training has bothered me…Not because of….but For years, centralized training has bothered me…Not because of….but primarily because of…..primarily because of…..And so I repeat: do away with centralized training.And so I repeat: do away with centralized training.

> > Opening stageOpening stage: the author announces his status as protagonist; no other : the author announces his status as protagonist; no other reference to the opening stage> discussion rules and other starting points reference to the opening stage> discussion rules and other starting points are often taken for granted and do not require explicit mentionare often taken for granted and do not require explicit mention

> > Confrontation stageConfrontation stage: the author puts forward the standpoint that centralized : the author puts forward the standpoint that centralized training should be done away withtraining should be done away with

> > Argumentation stageArgumentation stage: complete (not repeated here on account of space): complete (not repeated here on account of space)> > Concluding stageConcluding stage: explicit (even though the author speaks for himself) : explicit (even though the author speaks for himself)

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussionObs. 1. It is quite common for little time to be spent on Obs. 1. It is quite common for little time to be spent on

the the openingopening of a discussion. Discussion rules and of a discussion. Discussion rules and other starting points are often taken for granted and other starting points are often taken for granted and do not require specific mention. This is not entirely do not require specific mention. This is not entirely correct, however. It is precisely the lack of ‘proper correct, however. It is precisely the lack of ‘proper procedure’ in a discussion – the lack of proper rules – procedure’ in a discussion – the lack of proper rules – that causes many discussions to run into difficulty.that causes many discussions to run into difficulty.

2. The 2. The conclusionconclusion of a discussion is more often of a discussion is more often explicit, though seldom as explicitly expressed as in explicit, though seldom as explicitly expressed as in the following newspaper column:the following newspaper column:

e.g., A discussion about the relationship between parliament and public e.g., A discussion about the relationship between parliament and public opinion could be fascinating, but not with Polly Toynbee. I hereby opinion could be fascinating, but not with Polly Toynbee. I hereby declare that I have won the discussion and will now go on to more declare that I have won the discussion and will now go on to more important matters.important matters.

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion real-life argumentative discussions often depart from the real-life argumentative discussions often depart from the

model:model: - The parties do not go through all the four stages of the discussion The parties do not go through all the four stages of the discussion

stage or do not respect their order (e.g., 3)stage or do not respect their order (e.g., 3)

- One party may declare that the DO has been decided in its favour One party may declare that the DO has been decided in its favour before the argumentation stage has even been completedbefore the argumentation stage has even been completed

- The parties may realize that they have failed to clearly identify what The parties may realize that they have failed to clearly identify what exactly they disagree on so that it becomes necessary to go back to exactly they disagree on so that it becomes necessary to go back to the confrontation stagethe confrontation stage

- Elements of the different stages that are indispensable for the Elements of the different stages that are indispensable for the resolution of the DO may be missing resolution of the DO may be missing

- The discussion may also contain a great many elements (e.g., The discussion may also contain a great many elements (e.g., expressions of courtesy, jokes and anecdotes) that, without directly expressions of courtesy, jokes and anecdotes) that, without directly contributing to the resolution , help to make the discussion go more contributing to the resolution , help to make the discussion go more smoothlysmoothly

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussion These discrepancies between theory and practice do not diminish the These discrepancies between theory and practice do not diminish the

usefulness of the model which retains an important usefulness of the model which retains an important critical functioncritical function::

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

e.g., comparison with the model makes it possible to say that, in one instance e.g., comparison with the model makes it possible to say that, in one instance the discussion fails bc. The DO has not been clearly identified, whereas in the discussion fails bc. The DO has not been clearly identified, whereas in another instance it fails bc. roles have not been properly assigned or because another instance it fails bc. roles have not been properly assigned or because discussion rules have not been agreed on etc.discussion rules have not been agreed on etc.

Heuristic functionHeuristic function: :

- - the model may be the model may be an instrument for analyzing a discussion in a an instrument for analyzing a discussion in a constructive manner: constructive manner: one may identify more easily the elements one may identify more easily the elements that are only implicitly present in the discussion + the various that are only implicitly present in the discussion + the various elements of the discussion can be analyzed in a way that clarifies their elements of the discussion can be analyzed in a way that clarifies their role in the resolution processrole in the resolution process

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

An example of An example of explicitexplicit critical discussion critical discussion

(4) Paula: It seems to me it’s to my advantage that I have never done (4) Paula: It seems to me it’s to my advantage that I have never done anything like this before.anything like this before.

Jack: That’s not an advantage if you ask me.Jack: That’s not an advantage if you ask me. Paula: Why not?Paula: Why not? Jack: You first explain why you think it’s an advantage, and then I’ll Jack: You first explain why you think it’s an advantage, and then I’ll

tell you why I think it’s not.tell you why I think it’s not. Paula: Well, as far as I’m concerned, it’s pretty simple: the fact that I Paula: Well, as far as I’m concerned, it’s pretty simple: the fact that I

have no experience means that I approach it with no preconceived have no experience means that I approach it with no preconceived notions. And for a screen test that’s important.notions. And for a screen test that’s important.

Jack: It’s not at all an advantage to do a screen test with no Jack: It’s not at all an advantage to do a screen test with no experience because you have no idea what to do to present yourself experience because you have no idea what to do to present yourself in the most favourable light. And that’s really tricky.in the most favourable light. And that’s really tricky.

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussionObs. : Obs. : a casea case = the sum total of all = the sum total of all

argumentation brought forth to defend a stdp:argumentation brought forth to defend a stdp:

> nonmixed DO: only one party > nonmixed DO: only one party presents a case, irrespective of how simple or presents a case, irrespective of how simple or complex this argument may be. The complex this argument may be. The antagonist simply asks questions & does not antagonist simply asks questions & does not adopt a stdp.adopt a stdp.

> mixed DO: each party has a stdp > mixed DO: each party has a stdp which requires defending > each party which requires defending > each party presents a case for their stdp (4)presents a case for their stdp (4)

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussionImplicitImplicit Critical Discussions: only one of the parties Critical Discussions: only one of the parties

participatesparticipates

Even if the other party does not participates, his point Even if the other party does not participates, his point of view is still taken into account:of view is still taken into account:

The protagonist explicitly refers to the potential objections of The protagonist explicitly refers to the potential objections of a real or imaginary antagonista real or imaginary antagonist

(5) There is no other country in the world where women are as well (5) There is no other country in the world where women are as well integrated into the army as in Norway – and don’t go bringing up the integrated into the army as in Norway – and don’t go bringing up the case of Israel, because in Israel women don’t fight in the front lines. case of Israel, because in Israel women don’t fight in the front lines. Have you ever seen women soldiers in one of those intifadah photos?Have you ever seen women soldiers in one of those intifadah photos?

- An example of Implicit Critical Discussion: the monologue - An example of Implicit Critical Discussion: the monologue defending a standpoint ↔ a one-way dialoguedefending a standpoint ↔ a one-way dialogue

Argumentation and Argumentation and 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 process their 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 known objections :objections :

1.1. Outset: they need to establish that a difference of opinion exists or Outset: they need to establish that a difference of opinion exists or threatens 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 by They have to make it clear that they are prepared to resolve the DO by following certain rules for argumentative discussions; they may briefly following certain rules for argumentative discussions; they may briefly mention 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 They present their own argumentation, perhaps referring to the views of an opposing party (argumentation stage)of an opposing party (argumentation stage)

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

Argumentation and Argumentation and DiscussionDiscussionAn example of Implicit Critical DiscussionAn example of Implicit Critical Discussion

(6) A lot of people have been saying recently that (6) A lot of people have been saying recently that penalties for criminals should be stiffer. I don’t agree penalties for criminals should be stiffer. I don’t agree with this and I will explain why. I will first review all with this and I will explain why. I will first review all the arguments I’ve heard in favour of stiffer penalties the arguments I’ve heard in favour of stiffer penalties and show why they are unsound. […]and show why they are unsound. […]

I believe I have conclusively shown that stiffer I believe I have conclusively shown that stiffer penalties for criminals don’t make up any sense. This penalties for criminals don’t make up any sense. This is a matter on which reasonable people need no is a matter on which reasonable people need no longer disagree.longer disagree.

Selected BibliographySelected Bibliography

Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans. 2002. 2002. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eemeren, F.H. van (ed.). 2001. Eemeren, F.H. van (ed.). 2001. Crucial Concepts in Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Press.

Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans, Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans, J.A. Blair, Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, J.A. Blair, Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 1996. C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst. 1984. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Argumentative Discussions. Berlin/Dordrecht: Walter de Berlin/Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter/ForisGruyter/Foris