You are on page 1of 19

Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory

Argumentation and Discussion

Argumentation and Discussion

A critical discussion = an ideal type of argumentative discourse aimed at resolving a difference of opinion by determining whether the standpoints at issue ought to be accepted or not.
4 stages: the confrontation, the opening, the argumentation, and the concluding stage (in practice) the argumentative discourse corresponds only partly with this model

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

Argumentation and Discussion


1.1 Resolving a difference of opinion
A DO is resolved as soon as one of the two parties revise their original position DOs are resolved: (1) Elementary DOs - the doubting party abandons his/her doubts (2) Mixed DOs - the doubting party retreats from his/her standpoint

Argumentation and Discussion


(1) (2)

At first I wasnt sure whether I agreed with you, but I have to admit you are right. Now that I have heard all your reservations, Ive come to think that my standpoint isnt so strong after all

Ending an active disagreement resolving DO ?


resolving a DO: if the two parties come to hold the same position on the grounds of rational argumentation: - both parties adopt the same (+/-) standpoint - both parties begin to question the standpoint settling a DO: a disagreement is simply set aside

Argumentation and Discussion

settling a DO: a disagreement is simply set aside:


Intimidating or forcing the other party into submission Laying the matter before a third party who serves as a judge and decides who is right Deciding the winner by drawing lots Putting the matter to a vote and letting the majority decide:

(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, however, not all of the socialist members of the Cabinet are convinced of the desirability of the new policy measures.

Argumentation and Discussion


1.2 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. Informative discussion: serves primarily to convey information

Obs. 1. In real-life discussions, informative and argumentative elements are often combined. 2. When the discussion is not simply aimed at informing sb. about sth., it is best to view it as an argumentative discussion.

Argumentation and Discussion


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 Discussion

A critical discussion aimed at resolving a DO proceeds through 4 stages:

1.

The confrontation stage: the parties establish that they have a DO


> non-mixed DO: one partys standpoint is not immediately accepted by the other party, but is met with doubt or criticism > mixed DO: the other party advances the opposite standpoint

2.

The opening stage: the parties decide to resolve the DO > they assign the roles of protagonist and antagonist + they agree on the rules of discussion and on the starting points
> in a mixed DO there are two protagonists and two antagonists

Argumentation and Discussion


3. The argumentation stage: > the protagonist defends his standpoint against the criticism of the antagonist by putting forward arguments to counter the antagonists objections or to remove the antagonists doubts. 4. The concluding stage: > the parties assess the extent to which the difference of opinion has been resolved and in whose favour > if the protagonist withdraws the stdp, the DO is resolved in favour of the antagonist > if the antagonist abandons his/her doubts, the DO is resolved in favour of the protagonist

Argumentation and Discussion


1.3 The Ideal Model and Argumentative Practice
-

real-life argumentative discussions vs. the ideal model

(3) The Light Athletic Association leadership recently met to discuss the future of athletics.

This is undoubtedly a praiseworthy effort. 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.
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. For years, centralized training has bothered meNot because of.but primarily because of.. And so I repeat: do away with centralized training.

> Opening stage: the author announces his status as protagonist; no other reference to the opening stage> discussion rules and other starting points are often taken for granted and do not require explicit mention > Confrontation stage: the author puts forward the standpoint that centralized training should be done away with > Argumentation stage: complete (not repeated here on account of space) > Concluding stage: explicit (even though the author speaks for himself)

Argumentation and Discussion


Obs. 1. It is quite common for little time to be spent on the opening of a discussion. Discussion rules and other starting points are often taken for granted and do not require specific mention. This is not entirely correct, however. It is precisely the lack of proper procedure in a discussion the lack of proper rules that causes many discussions to run into difficulty.
2. The conclusion of a discussion is more often explicit, though seldom as explicitly expressed as in the following newspaper column:
e.g., A discussion about the relationship between parliament and public 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 important matters.

Argumentation and Discussion


-

real-life argumentative discussions often depart from the model:


The parties do not go through all the four stages of the discussion stage or do not respect their order (e.g., 3) One party may declare that the DO has been decided in its favour before the argumentation stage has even been completed 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 the confrontation stage Elements of the different stages that are indispensable for the resolution of the DO may be missing The discussion may also contain a great many elements (e.g., expressions of courtesy, jokes and anecdotes) that, without directly contributing to the resolution , help to make the discussion go more smoothly

Argumentation and Discussion

These discrepancies between theory and practice do not diminish the usefulness of the model which retains an important critical function:
- the model may be a tool for identifying where real-life argumentative discussion goes wrong: it makes it possible to identify what necessary elements are missing or inadequately represented
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 another instance it fails bc. roles have not been properly assigned or because discussion rules have not been agreed on etc.

Heuristic function:

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

Argumentation and Discussion


1.4 Argumentation in an Implicit Critical Discussion
An example of explicit critical discussion (4) Paula: It seems to me its to my advantage that I have never done anything like this before. Jack: Thats not an advantage if you ask me. Paula: Why not? Jack: You first explain why you think its an advantage, and then Ill tell you why I think its not. Paula: 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 a screen test thats important. Jack: Its not at all an advantage to do a screen test with no experience because you have no idea what to do to present yourself in the most favourable light. And thats really tricky.

Argumentation and Discussion


Obs. : a case = the sum total of all argumentation brought forth to defend a stdp:
> nonmixed DO: only one party presents a case, irrespective of how simple or complex this argument may be. The antagonist simply asks questions & does not adopt a stdp.

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

Argumentation and Discussion


Implicit Critical Discussions: only one of the parties participates

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

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

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

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

Argumentation and Discussion


With implicit discussions the party putting forward their case need to present their argumentation + incorporate the other stages of the discussion process (confrontation, opening, conclusion) + point out potential doubts and known objections :
1.

Outset: they need to establish that a difference of opinion exists or threatens to arise (confrontation stage) They have to make it clear that they are prepared to resolve the DO by following certain rules for argumentative discussions; they may briefly mention these rules and any starting points (opening stage) They present their own argumentation, perhaps referring to the views of an opposing party (argumentation stage) They need to assess to what extent the difference of opinion has been resolved by their argumentation (concluding stage)

2.

3.

4.

Argumentation and Discussion


An example of Implicit Critical Discussion
(6) A lot of people have been saying recently that penalties for criminals should be stiffer. I dont agree with this and I will explain why. I will first review all the arguments Ive heard in favour of stiffer penalties and show why they are unsound. [] I believe I have conclusively shown that stiffer penalties for criminals dont make up any sense. This is a matter on which reasonable people need no longer disagree.

Selected Bibliography
Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, F.H. van (ed.). 2001. Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans, J.A. Blair, Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

You might also like