Implicit Theories of Argument in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Abstract

It is hard enough to formulate theories of argumentation to explain political debates today, when they are commonplace, when the verbal and visual records are easily available, and when contemporaneous critical commentary abounds. That is because political debates are pragmatic quests for advantage within a specific context. Lincoln insisted that his views were consistent. But he did tweak his statements, and precisely for the reason Douglas gave. The very name Republican was such an anathema outside northern Illinois that any effort to tie Lincoln to it would cost him votes. Douglas clearly regarded the burden of proof as a minimal standard. It seemed to be fully satisfied by the mere presentation of a prima facie case. He was content to repeat his arguments from debate to debate as if they had not been answered earlier. He twice pledged to produce proof for an assertion, but did not remember or fulfill this pledge.