Argument Classification Research Articles

Policing Hate Speech and Extremism: A Taxonomy of Arguments in Opposition

Hate speech and extremist association do real and substantial harm to individuals, groups, and our society as a whole. Our common sense, experience, and empathy for the targets of extremism tell us that our laws should do more to address this issue. Current reform efforts have therefore sought to revise our laws to do a better job at policing, prohibiting, and punishing hate speech and extremist association. Efforts to do so, however, encounter numerous and substantial challenges. We can divide them into three general categories: definitional problems, operational problems, and conscientious problems. An informed understanding of these three categories of arguments is indispensable to any effort that seeks to reform the law in ways that will survive constitutional scrutiny. This Article provides a detailed legal and normative analysis of those arguments and common objections raised to them. It contends that the arguments raised in opposition to more expansive regulation of hate speech and extremist association largely get things right. And it concludes that more expansive regulation could have dire and unintended consequences that would disserve the interests of all, including the groups who advocate for such regulation.

Evidence-based campaigning

BackgroundWhen promoting public health measures, such as reducing smoking, there are many different approaches, for example providing information, imposing legal restrictions, taxing products, and changing cultures. By analogy with evidence-based medicine, different approaches to campaigning for health promotion can be compared by obtaining evidence of effectiveness. However, evaluating the effectiveness of campaigning approaches is far more difficult than evaluating drugs or medical procedures, because controls are seldom possible, endpoints are difficult to specify, multiple factors influence outcomes, and the targets of campaigns are people or organizations that may resist.MethodsTen ideal campaigning types are proposed: positive and negative approaches to the five categories of information, attitude, arguments, authorities and incentives. To illustrate the ideal types and the complexities of evaluating approaches to campaigning, three contrasting Australian strategies to promote vaccination are examined.ResultsEach of the three vaccination-promotion strategies showed the presence of several ideal campaigning types, but with distinct differences in emphasis. With available evidence, it is difficult to assess the relative effectiveness of the three strategies.ConclusionBecause of the difficulty in obtaining evidence, claims about the effectiveness of general approaches to health promotion should be treated with scepticism, especially when presented by partisans. There are inherent difficulties in making campaigning evidence-based.

Sa skya Pa\u1e47\u1e0dita\u2019s Classification of Arguments by Consequence Based on the Type of the Logical Reason: Editorial Conundrum and Mathematics for Commentators

This paper examines a passage of the eleventh chapter of the Rigs gter of Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182–1251) on the division of arguments by consequence (thal ʾgyur) of the form “Because S is P, it follows that it is Q” with respect to the type of relation between P and Q. This passage appears in quite different versions in several available recensions of the Rigs gter, all of which are problematic to some extent. The different interpretations of the commentators can be shown to derive from their reliance on different versions of the text, which they strove to make sense of through two distinct strategies. Following up on the examination of a division of arguments by consequence along the same line in the works of Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Tibetan predecessors, in particular Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge (1109–1169) and mTshur ston gZhon nu seng ge (ca. 1150–1210) (see Hugon, in J Indian Philos 44(5):883–938, 2016b), I evaluate the diverging versions of the Rigs gter against a coherent logical scenario founded on Sa skya Paṇḍita’s discussion pertaining to the types of logical reasons in inference in the tenth chapter of his work and comparison with the classification by Phya pa. I offer a hypothesis regarding the genesis of the problematic versions of the passage on the classification of consequences in the Rigs gter based on the comparison with the classification found in mTshur ston’s epistemological work. I propose that the composition of this portion of the Rigs gter might have involved a textual reuse of mTshur ston’s classification, even though mTshur ston and Sa skya Paṇḍita disagree on background issues. This very disagreement imposed changes to the reused text that led to problematic readings.

Argumentos religiosos y matrimonio igualitario: análisis de las discusiones en el Congreso de la República de Colombia, a la luz de la propuesta de Habermas sobre la religión en la esfera pública

El presente texto analiza, a la luz de los postulados de la filosofía política de la religión de Habermas, las discusiones desarrolladas en el Congreso de la República de Colombia, en relación con los proyectos de ley que buscaban reglamentar el matrimonio igualitario. La investigación parte de una breve descripción de la propuesta de Habermas y luego aborda el análisis de los argumentos presentados en los debates en el Congreso sobre matrimonio igualitario. Una vez identificadas las fuentes documentales se hace un análisis crítico del discurso, el cual supone una metodología de tipo cualitativo sobre los argumentos presentados en los distintos niveles del debate. El resultado del análisis permitió identificar categorías de argumentos religiosos usados en la discusión política sobre el proyecto de ley analizado, su deficiencia y las dificultades de cumplir con el ideal habermasiano

DE LA CRITIQUE DU PRESENT AUX POSSIBILITES DANS L’HISTOIRE: A PROPOS DE L’ ONTOLOGIE DU NON-ENCORE-ETRE DANS LA PENSEE D’ERNST BLOCH

Ernst Bloch's The Principle Hope [de Prinzip Hoffnung] (1954-1959) in the context of the twentieth century emerges as a theoretical work not interior of the Marxist tradition whose central objective is an interpretation and update of the utopias that mark the history of culture: an inheritance intact. As a work of historical memory, such a thought refuses to play such as is what is forgetfulness. However, in different categories of argument, a denial of all extreme pessimism as to the possibilities for historical transformation - and which is current to the concept of utopia - lies in the theorizing of what the author calls the ontology of the still-not-being, that is , from a philosophical debate about external reality. In his most important work - text that enters into the index of Marxist orthodoxy - a constant passage from anthropology and psychology to ontology is observed, so as to think of the being of subjectivity as much as it is of the work, as well as the dialectical relations between them. In this hermeneutics of utopias we see a reflection arise in which the philosophical primacy is not the being, but the still-not-being. From this perspective, we may think that Ernst Bloch's philosophy is utopian as a theory of the still-non-existent being. An ontology of the still non-being, object of the present reflection, is presented as one of the central themes in The Hope Principle.

Posicionamiento de las Pautas de Patentabilidad a través del análisis de Oposiciones a patentes de medicamentos.

Argentinian Patentability guidelines for pharmaceutical products show examiners how to apply patentability requirements to particular circumstances and are a useful tool to avoid evergreening. In order to check the scope of these guidelines, a content analysis of antiretroviral oppositions was carried out, characterizing the arguments used and correlating the relevant categories appearing in the Guidelines and contained in the opposition arguments. The argumentative categories mostly used are: lack of novelty and inventive step, non compliance with enhancement and descriptive insufficiency. In correlation with the Guidelines it is observed that: formulations and compositions, polymorphs and salts and esters are the most litigated categories. The content of the Guidelines as nonpatentable material corresponds with the arguments used in the oppositions, backing up their application and the possibility to reduce the need to use the opposition mechanism, avoiding evergreening for irrelevant incremental innovations.

Dimensions for argument and variability in child protection decision-making

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to analyse the arguments presented by 181 professionals in the child protection system of the Basque Country (Spain) to justify their decisions regarding the implementation of measures related to family preservation or separation. The implementation of a case vignette demonstrated variability in professional decision-making, with 62% of professionals choosing family preservation and 38% opting for family separation. A series of argument categories which can be used by most professionals when making decisions are extracted from analysis of the content. However, in spite of using similar types of arguments, the professionals differed in the importance they attributed to such criteria and their interpretations. Differences in decision thresholds were directly related to professionals’ beliefs regarding the benefits of the interventions analysed. To reduce this variability, reflecting on these beliefs and analysing the effectiveness of interventions in child protection to incorporate evidence of professional judgement are recommended. The present study, on the one hand, identifies the argument categories used to justify decisions and, on the other, analyses the existing variability when interpreting these categories.

The modal-epistemic argument for the existence of God is flawed

In a recent article, Emanuel Rutten has presented a novel argument for the existence of God, defined as a personal being that is the first cause of reality. An interesting feature of the argument, which caused quite a stir, is that it does not fall within any of the traditional categories of arguments for God’s existence. Rutten calls his argument a modal-epistemic one, which reflects the fact that the first premise of his argument states that all possible truths are knowable. The main purpose of this article is a simple one: to point out that Rutten’s modal-epistemic argument is flawed.

The Fakegate scandal

Purpose Although ethics are frequently debated within the social marketing literature, there has been very little empirical study of deliberate ethical transgressions in promoting a good cause. The current study therefore aims to contribute by examining public reaction to the Fakegate scandal involving a climate scientist’s use of ethically questionable tactics in the “selling” of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) cause. Design/methodology/approach Content analysis catalogues the Fakegate justifications and criticisms used by eight UK and US print media editorials and 1,010 associated reader comments. Findings Among the argument classification categories, the most common Fakegate justifications rely on a utilitarian “greater good” ethics perspective, while the most frequent criticisms rely on a normative “violation of rules” ethics perspective. AGW believers represent nearly all the scandal justifiers, while AGW skeptics and a substantial minority of AGW believers represent the critics. Research limitations/implications Content material is limited to only the Fakegate case and people with enough interest to contribute a relevant comment, although the expressed viewpoints may be more widely representative because they are generally consistent with findings from the AGW public opinion polls. Originality/value This study provides an understanding of the ethical dilemma that social marketers face when assigned a “difficult-to-sell” good cause. The findings of the widespread public skepticism toward the AGW cause suggest that social marketers should resist the temptation of using ethically questionable tactics in such difficult cases. Unfortunately, honest and effective AGW “selling” may be impossible until current technology and policy tradeoffs are reduced.

On feature augmentation for semantic argument classification of the Quran English translation using support vector machine

Research on the semantic argument classification requires semantically labeled data in large numbers, called corpus. Because building a corpus is costly and time-consuming, recently many studies have used existing corpus as the training data to conduct semantic argument classification research on new domain. But previous studies have proven that there is a significant decrease in performance when classifying semantic arguments on different domain between the training and the testing data. The main problem is when there is a new argument that found in the testing data but it is not found in the training data. This research carries on semantic argument classification on a new domain that is Quran English Translation by utilizing Propbank corpus as the training data. To recognize the new argument in the training data, this research proposes four new features for extending the argument features in the training data. By using SVM Linear, the experiment has proven that augmenting the proposed features to the baseline system with some combinations option improve the performance of semantic argument classification on Quran data using Propbank Corpus as training data.

Averroes, the Decisive Treatise: The Connection Between Islamic Religious Law and Philosophy transed. by Massimo Campanini

Reviewed by: Averroes, the Decisive Treatise: The Connection Between Islamic Religious Law and Philosophy transed. by Massimo Campanini Chryssi Sidiropoulou (bio) Averroes, the Decisive Treatise: The Connection Between Islamic Religious Law and Philosophy. Edited and translated by Massimo Campanini. New Jersey, Gorgias Press, 2017. Pp. 134. Hardcover $ 117. ISBN 978–1-4632–0638-3 Massimo Campanini offers a new translation of Averroes's Fasl Al Maqal from the Arabic original, preceded by a substantial introduction to the text. The introduction, a kind of interpretative essay, attempts to clarify Ibn Rushd's position on the relation between philosophy and religion, the genre to which the Fasl belongs and the format it utilizes, while also offering a fully blown and intriguing outline of the political, theological, cultural, and ideological debates in Andalusia during the Almohadic period. A large part of the 55 pages of this informative essay is dedicated to what Campanini considers to be Ibn Rushd's view of language as a pluralistic means of expressing the same truth in multiple ways. According to Campanini, Averroes sees truth as standing at the intersection of alternative formulations. Campanini's essay is divided into the following parts: 1. "The book and its title" (p. 1), 2. "Averroes Life and Works" (p. 3), 3. "The Meaning of Averroes' Work" (p. 9), 4. "Being and Language in the Decisive Treatise" (p. 23), 5. "Sociology of Knowledge" (p. 43), and, 6. "Averroes, The Double truth and his Heritage" (p. 47), all followed by a bibliography (pp. 55–68). The most substantial part is to be found in the 19 pages of section 4, "Being and Language in the Decisive Treatise," where Campanini explores Averroes's theory of language and meaning. His preoccupation with this theme springs from a concern of paramount importance and the real pivot for the Fasl: This is Averroes's famous, or should one say infamous, interpretation of Surah Imran 7, to the effect that it is philosophers rather than theologians who have the ability and must be entrusted with the interpretation of the ambiguous verses (mutashabihat) of the Scripture. In combination with Averroes's re-rendering of the Aristotelian classification of arguments into a threefold distinction of demonstrative, dialectical and rhetorical ones, it yields the idea of three classes of people. Significantly, Campanini says that this opens the way to a sociological distinction of people into three classes. Introducing talk of a "sociological" element facilitates Campanini's attempt to drive home his reading of Averroes in general and of the Fasl in particular as engaged in a political project very much in tune with the official ideology of [End Page 1] Andalusia under the Almohades. After exposing what he sees as the main tenets of the political and theological project of the Almohades, engaging with "Almohadic theology" and exploring the position of Ibn Rushd as an intellectual in the court of Abu Yaqub Yusuf, Campanini concludes that the Decisive Treatise constitutes a "judicial-philosophical justification of Almohad theology" (p. 11), while the Disclosure of the Methods of Proof is a systematisation of such a theology (p. 11). This inference is behind Campanini's conviction that the standard translation of the Fasl's title calls for radical re-evaluation. In his exposition of "Almohadic theology" and its political ramifications Campanini refers both to Dominique Urvoy and to Josep Puig Montada. In so doing he mentions Urvoy's view of the Fasl as part of a triptych together with the Disclosure of the Methods of Proof as well as Averroes's famous Tahafut. The term "Almohad Theology" seems to be the axis upon which Urvoy's classification, which Campanini adopts, is articulated. On his part, Campanini brands the Fasl a "borderline work between theology, Law and philosophy" (p. 10). Even more importantly, the work is said to constitute a justification of Almohad theology, and more specifically, a judicial-philosophical justification (p. 10). This reference to the judicial element offers a way of relating to Josep Puig Montada's call to "read Averroes's theology politically (p. 11)." Campanini takes heed and explores the Fasl's political implications by calling attention to the position of the jurists in Almohadic society (p. 15). In so doing...

La argumentación en los procesos de resolución de conflictos escolares.

El presente artículo, producto de una investigación, explicita las categorías argumentativas (tema, propósitos, medios y participantes) presentes en los procesos de resolución de conflictos, entre estudiantes y docentes de un colegio en la ciudad de Bogotá. Indicando estas categorías en un escenario de atención de diferencias denominado Encuentro Pedagógico de Convivencia, donde la comunicación juega papel fundamental al realizar un acercamiento a las controversias y búsqueda de solución en el proceso dialógico entre profesor y alumno. Entre los hallazgos más relevantes está que los docentes utilizan la norma como elemento esencial de sus argumentaciones, mientras los estudiantes emplean la emoción como fundamento de su argumentación.

Effects of constructing, critiquing, and revising arguments within university classrooms

Fifty-seven students in mathematics content and secondary mathematics methods classrooms at four universities participated in an instructional sequence to communally generate criteria defining a valid proof. Participants were asked to complete a proof-related task before class, work together in small groups to evaluate fellow students’ arguments, communally agree upon criteria for evaluating said arguments based on their evaluations, and then rate and revise their original argument to satisfy the communal criteria after class. We used a modified analytical categorization of arguments to compare students’ before-class and after-class work. Results demonstrated that students’ self-rating aligned positively with the argument categories, but two critical challenges were also observed: (1) students’ self-rating of their arguments was not positively correlated with the class-acceptance rate of those arguments indicating that individual and communal perceptions of proof varied; and (2) students struggled to revise their arguments to align with the communal criteria.

Secondary school science teachers' arguments for the particulate nature of matter

AbstractHow do secondary school science teachers justify the model of a particulate nature of matter, and how do the arguments they use relate to historical arguments? To find out, we individually interviewed 11 in‐service secondary school science teachers (certified to teach chemistry and/or physics in secondary school, and with 2 to 30 years of teaching experience) regarding their arguments for the particulate nature of matter and experiments that could demonstrate the existence of particles. The collected data were qualitatively analyzed. Three qualitatively different categories of arguments could be constructed from data: philosophical arguments, indirect experimental arguments, and direct experimental arguments. The indirect experimental arguments which is the largest category could be further divided into qualitatively different subcategories: nonspecific research and experiments, and chemical, physical, and subatomic experiments. Even though several experiments and arguments were suggested by the informants in our study, the arguments regarding the validity of the experiments were quite uncertain and vague. The experiments and arguments were used to corroborate the particulate nature of matter and taken for granted in advance rather than used to justify a model with particles. The outcome was discussed in relation to scientific arguments and experiments and in view of results from previous science education research. Based on our data, teacher education and in‐service teacher training, as well as teacher guides, were suggested to be more elaborate regarding contemporary knowledge, with direct experimental evidence for the particulate nature of matter being presented.

Vaccine criticism: Presence and arguments on French-speaking websites

ObjectiveTo evaluate the presence of vaccine criticism on the French Web and to analyze strategies and arguments used by opponents of vaccination. MethodsThe most frequently used keywords associated with the terms “vaccination” and “vaccine” on Google.fr in September 2013 were identified and searched for individually on Google.fr. The links presented in the first three pages of results were reviewed to identify the most frequent providers of information. The proportion of critical content was determined by website type and a content analysis was performed. ResultsThe main preoccupations about vaccination were general concerns; <1% of searches were guided by negative keywords. Institutional websites, healthcare websites, news websites and anti-vaccine websites were the most frequent providers of results. The proportion of anti-vaccine websites among the results was 11% for a neutral search and 24% for a search guided by negative keywords. Critical content was observed in other types of website. Six major strategies and categories of arguments used by opponents of vaccination were identified: the manipulation of science, the use of shocking images and an appeal to emotions via testimonies, a general vaccination conspiracy, the individual's freedom of choice not respected, an unnatural act and a negative benefit/risk balance. ConclusionIt seems important to monitor online vaccination debates, to develop an institutional presence that meets the needs of Internet users and to help them develop a critical view.

What Sorts of Things are Public Morals? A Liberal Cosmopolitan Approach to Article XX GATT

Existing theories of WTO law cannot adequately explain the form or content of the GATT exceptions, in particular Article XX(a) Public Morals. Nor, in consequence, can they satisfactorily answer the interpretive questions they raise. This article explains Article XX in terms of self‐determination as a political and moral value, and the choices it mandates peoples make for themselves. Drawing on debates in contemporary political philosophy, it distinguishes three categories of argument for self‐determination: intrinsic, expressive and instrumental, each having implications for the scope of the choices a self‐determining community must make for itself. This account of self‐determination in trade regulation is used to reconstruct Article XX, both explaining the individual provisions, and suggesting how these might be developed and interpreted. It concludes by examining Article XX(a) in detail, highlighting the interpretive questions public morals pose, and how understanding Article XX in terms of self‐determination suggests these should be answered.

Digital and analog logics: An analysis of the discourse on property rights and information goods

ABSTRACTWe examine arguments both for strengthening property rights and expanding the public domain for digital information goods. Specifically, we conduct a Toulminian analysis of arguments made at a cross-disciplinary symposium at Duke Law School on information goods and the public domain. We find that there are two “logics” underlying arguments on issues related to information goods: what we describe as digital and analog logics. We also identify five argument categories—profit motive, economic efficiency, innovation, ethics and fundamental rights, and temporality—and two different time frames used for judging impacts—proximal and distal. We conclude with a number of theory-generating propositions and a provocation for our conceptions of capitalism in the digital age.

Opinion Communication on Contested Topics: How Empirics and Arguments can Improve Social Simulation

The effect of social interactions on how opinions are developed and changed over time is crucial to public processes that involve citizens and their points of view. In this opinion dynamics exercise, we address the topic of nuclear waste repositories in Switzerland and suggest a more realistic investigation of public opinion using agent-based modeling in combination with empirical data and sociopsychological theory. Empirical data obtained from an online questionnaire (N = 841) is used for the initialization of the model, whose agents directly represent the participants. We use social judgment theory (SJT) to describe how opinions can be adapted during social interactions, including through mechanisms of contrast and assimilation. Furthermore, we focus on the definition of “opinion†itself, claiming that working with disaggregated opinions (i.e., arguments) can play a determining role if one aims to capture real-world mechanisms of opinion dynamics. Simulation results show different patterns for the three different argument categories used for this specific topic (i.e., risk, benefit, and process), suggesting a mutual influence between an individual’s initial knowledge and evaluations and an individual’s social dynamics and opinion changes. The importance of content-related and empirical information, as well as the theory and mechanisms used in the social simulation, are discussed.

Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention.

BackgroundIn specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent.MethodsHere, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy.ResultsWe identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures.ConclusionsThe reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB.

Análise argumentativa de um acórdão: quadro institucional,doxa e representações sociais em um gênero judicial

Neste artigo, propomos a elaboração de uma análise linguístico-discursiva de um acórdão, produzido no interior de um processo criminal instaurado para apurar suposta prática de aborto voluntário por uma mulher. Para isso, apoiamo-nos principalmente nos constructos teóricos de Amossy (2006), de estudo da argumentação no discurso, em paralelo com a Teoria da Argumentação de Perelman e Olbrechts-Tyteca (1996), conhecida como Nova Retórica. Ao empreendermos essa análise, objetivamos a compreensão do objeto de pesquisa em sua estrutura argumentativa, buscando identificar e correlacionar aspectos como o quadro institucional que modela o exercício da argumentação nesse proferimento, os canais de entrada dos elementos dóxicos, as manifestações de heterogeneidade mostrada, a presença das representações sociais, a construção e a circulação de imagens de si e do outro no discurso e os processos de estereotipia. Concluímos que o gênero acórdão está sujeito a um quadro de fortes restrições genéricas e institucionais, que modela e determina as condições do dizer. Concluímos, ainda, que se trata de um gênero formado a partir de vozes provenientes do próprio campo jurídico (discurso da norma, discurso da ciência do Direito e discursos produzidos em outros tribunais), e de elementos dóxicos circulantes no meio social. Portanto, por mais que se postule uma pretensa neutralidade das instâncias julgadoras diante dos casos que lhes são submetidos, esse é um ideal inatingível, pois os membros do judiciário também estão sujeitos às crenças compartilhadas, às ideias recebidas, aos estereótipos circulantes, como qualquer outro sujeito que viva em dada sociedade, em certo momento histórico.