Argumentation Theory Research Articles

Teoria da Argumentação para a concepção do Direito como integridade de Dworkin: Uma impossibilidade?

The article aims to verify the possibility of an argumentation theory within the framework of Ronald Dworkin’s theory of Law as Integrity. The research is based on a literature re-view based on the analysis of the epistemological contradiction between the current theories of legal argumentation and the theory of Law as Integrity, based on Hans-Georg Gadamer and Ronald Dworkin. We conclude that, despite this contradiction, a theory of argu-mentation is possible within Dworkin’s theory, as long as the logic of developing a previous and methodical path to reach a metaphysical truth is overcome. Without illusions or relativism, we propose the acceptance of Law as Integrity, founded on hermeneutic bases, as an alternative for the strengthening of an argumentative process within the scope of a Democratic State of Law.

Features of the use of critical thinking skills in countering manipulation in modern communication.

The subject of the study is critical thinking. The article is devoted to the study of the role of critical thinking in modern communication conditions. Particular attention is paid to the peculiarities of using critical thinking skills in countering manipulative influences both in the professional sphere and in personal communicative interaction. The article substantiates that critical thinking is one of the most important skills in the modern world; the importance of critical thinking skills for effectively processing large amounts of incoming information, as well as for building successful communication, is clarified; the specifics and features of the application of critical thinking skills in the context of communicative interaction are considered; the role of logical as well as rhetorical components in communication is substantiated; options for countering communicative manipulations and incorrect communicative influences are proposed. The article uses methods of comparative analysis, contextual analysis, synthesis, generalization, classification, as well as the logical method. The article proposes a division of communicative goals according to the type of statements. Particular attention is focused on analyzing the situation of the motivating communicative goal. The article clarifies the meaning of the following concepts: communication, 4K competencies, critical thinking, non-critical thinking, manipulation, logical, psychological and rhetorical argumentation strategies, communicative purpose, rhetoric, ad hominem arguments, ad rem arguments, deductive inferences, inductive inferences. The article proposes methods and tools for strengthening the skills of building effective communicative interaction. Methods of countering manipulative communicative influences are also analyzed both from the point of view of logical science and rhetorical skill. The article will be useful for both undergraduate and graduate students studying rhetoric, argumentation theory, communication techniques, and a wide range of readers.

Twitter (X), Fast Fashion and Backlash: Argumentation and Ethics on Social Media

Social media backlashes have emerged as important phenomena complicating how businesses communicate online and representing significant brand risk. This article demonstrates the value of content analysis and argumentation theory for understanding and responding to social media backlash events, using two examples from the UK fashion industry (hashtags #ThanksItsASOS and #boycottboohoo). The results provide lessons about the way backlashes operate in practice, how to analyze these effectively, and have implications for business approaches to communicating about Corporate Social Responsibility and managing social media. The authors conclude with suggestions for training on social media and CSR for businesses.

The Empirical Nature of Norms for Decision in The Works of Eugene Ehrlich and Robert Alexi

The article under studies deals with significance of empirical arguments in juridical methodology. It relies on the fact that empirical dimension of law is an interesting and complicated issue, and E. Ehrlich’s concept of norms is one of the best solutions to it. This solution contains quite a few open questions, and the modern juridical methodology seeks answers to them both with the help of tools known a hundred or more years ago and in the ways developed in the last fifty years within the framework of the theory of juridical argumentation.
 The purpose of the article is to reveal the empirical nature of norms for decision. In order to achieve the goal, it is essential to answer the questions about the concept of the empirical dimension of law, the relationship between reality and necessity, etc., as well as the question about the empirical nature of norms for decision. All in all, the article analyzes the concept of the empirical effect of law, and specifically, how norms for decision make it possible to take into account the empirical aspects of the implementation of law. It has been ascertained that the empirical dimension of law is an approach to law based on the issue of the relationship between reality and necessity. In other words, it is the question of how one can move from reality to necessity, which is impossible within the so-called alethic system of Theophrastus and the corresponding deontic interpretation, the former allowing only the transition from necessity to reality, but not vice versa. Norms for decision are one of the tools for solving an empirical problem, which means that empirical arguments are applied within the framework of the so-called general practical arguments (for example, the results of demographic or other sociological studies, forecasting future outcomes of court proceedings based on statistical data on previous proceedings in similar cases, etc).

Argumentation with justified preferences

It is often necessary and reasonable to justify preferences before reasoning from them. Moreover, justifying a preference ordering is reduced to justifying the criterion that produces the ordering. This paper builds on the well-known ASPIC+ formalism to develop a model that integrates justifying qualitative preferences with reasoning from the justified preferences. We first introduce a notion of preference criterion in order to model the way in which preferences are justified by an argumentation framework. We also adapt the notion of argumentation theory to build a sequence of argumentation frameworks, in which an argumentation framework justifies preferences that are to underlie the next framework. That is, in our formalism, preferences become not only an input of an argumentation framework, but also an output of it. This kind of input-output process can be applied in the further steps of argumentation. We also explore some interesting properties of our formalism.

Development of students' critical thinking as the development of their functional literacy

Indicators of the quality, competitiveness of general education are the educational results of students recognized in the world, corresponding to functional literacy, which includes, among other things, critical thinking of students. The purpose of the paper is to develop a technique for the development of students' critical thinking Critical analysis of the text and its rationale, a description of its practical application in the educational practice of a general education institution. Research methods include methods of theoretical and empirical research. The paper proposes the technique Critical analysis of the text, represented by a new list of questions, the rationale for which is carried out on the basis of 4 laws of logic, the criteria for selecting the content of education, which provide the possibility to develop techniques for the development of critical thinking of students. An example of using the technique "Critical analysis of the text" at the lesson of Conversations about the important issues is also given. An analysis of the achievements of experimental work related to the use of techniques for the development of critical thinking of students in the educational process made it possible to establish an increment in the experience of critical thinking of students, which gave reason to consider the developed techniques effective. The scientific novelty of the study includes the method of "critical analysis of the text", represented by a new list of questions developed on the basis of the theories of critical thinking and logic. The theoretical significance of the study is related to the substantiation of the list of questions for the "Critical analysis of the text" technique, carried out on the basis of the argumentation theory, with the development of criteria for selecting the content of education, on the basis of which it is possible to design multi-level tasks for the development of students' critical thinking. The practical significance of the results of the study is shown in the given example of using the method "Critical analysis of the text" in educational practice, in particular at the lesson of "Sport and Politics" ("Talk about the important"). The Critical Analysis of the Text method developed in the study, which determines the development of critical thinking of students, enriches the theory of pedagogical design and opens up new opportunities for its further development.

Adding transparency to uncertainty: An argument-based method for evaluative opinions

Over the past 15 years, digital evidence has been identified as a leading cause, or contributing factor, in wrongful convictions in England and Wales. To prevent legal decision-makers from being misled about the relevance and credibility of digital evidence and to ensure a fair administration of justice, adopting a balanced, systematic and transparent approach to evaluating digital evidence and disseminating results is crucial. This paper draws on general concepts from argumentation theory, combined with key principles and concepts from probabilistic and narrative/scenario approaches to develop arguments and analyse evidence. We present the “Argument-Based Method for Evaluative Opinions”, which is a novel method for producing argument-based evaluative opinions in the context of criminal investigation. The method may be used stand-alone or in combination with other qualitative or quantitative/statistical methods to produce evaluative opinions, highlighting the logical relationships between the components making up the argument supporting a hypothesis. To facilitate a structured assessment of the credibility and relevance of the individual argument components, we introduce an Argument Evaluation Scale and, ultimately, an Argument Matrix for a holistic determination of the probative value of the evidence.

“Where were you shot?”: analyzing location rhetoric as strategic maneuvering in contemporary gun-control discourse

This essay analyzes contemporary American gun rhetoric with particular attention to location. Funded by a pragma-dialectic perspective, I examine conservative and progressive attempts to situate the national discussion about firearms and gun control legislation in urban locations (especially Chicago) and in suburbs (especially schoolhouses), respectively. I demonstrate that these location rhetorics function as strategic maneuvering, enabling both sets of discussants to move the conversation to issue sets that favor them and make their policy preferences seem more reasonable, even as they often prevent the public from responding to the bulk of actual gun violence. To begin, I develop a perspective on public argument based on pragma-dialectic argumentation theory. Next, I attend to conservative rhetoric that publicizes gun violence in large urban population centers, especially Chicago. Then, I turn to liberal gun rhetoric that centers attention on leafy suburbs where mass shootings often occur. In the final portion of this paper, I argue that both strategies disadvantage the public and forestall meaningful improvement on this important issue.

Crises, Fast and Slow: A Contract-grading Response in Digital Humanities Pedagogy

In the midst of COVID-19, I adapted an upper-year-undergraduate digital editions class to a contract grading method. I struggled to find models that suited the needs of my class. My course demanded a single, core final assignment (a digital edition), but almost all models are for smaller, cumulative assignments with which students make up their contracted grade level. The intervention of this article is methodological: what might contract grading look like in a way that supports scaffolding to a single, larger assignment? And it is critical and theoretical: how does this particular case study interact with theories of improved learning and equity and accessibility in the classroom? Jordana Cox and Lauren Tilton’s theories of argument or rhetoric as ‘gift’ in the context of the digital public humanities provides a framework through which to consider the ways that contract grading and student DH projects together might imagine co-operative argumentation.

Герхард Оберхаммер. Вступление Пакшиласвамина к его «Ньяя-бхашье»

The publication is a commented translation and study of the work “Pakṣilasvāmin’s Introduction to his Nyāyabhāṣyam” by a prominent Austrian indologist and intercultural philosopher G.R.F. Oberhammer. The author examines the background of Oberhammer’s research, gives a brief information about the school of Nyāya and focuses on how Oberhammer demonstrates the history of Nyāya and its becoming aware of itself as a philosophical system based on the short text of Pakṣilasvāmin (Vātsyāyana) introduction to his Nyāyabhāṣyam. In his article, Oberhammer answers the question why such heterogeneous parts as elements of the theory of argumentation borrowed from the ancient tradition of Vāda (the theory of debate), logic and epistemology, cosmology and the doctrine of the soul and its liberation from the bonds of saṁsāra (soteriology) were combined into the harmonious philosophical system of Nyāya and how this happened during the development of the school due to its becoming aware of itself as a method of searching for truth (and what this truth is from the point of view of Nyāya), how this was helped by creative borrowing from another philosophical school – Yoga. The publication is prefaced by a brief history of the Viennese oriental and indological school, to which Oberhammer belongs.

Герхард Оберхаммер. Вступление Пакшиласвамина к его «Ньяя-бхашье»

The publication is a commented translation and study of the work “Pakṣilasvāmin’s Introduction to his Nyāyabhāṣyam” by a prominent Austrian indologist and intercultural philosopher G.R.F. Oberhammer. The author examines the background of Oberhammer’s research, gives a brief information about the school of Nyāya and focuses on how Oberhammer demonstrates the history of Nyāya and its becoming aware of itself as a philosophical system based on the short text of Pakṣilasvāmin (Vātsyāyana) introduction to his Nyāyabhāṣyam. In his article, Oberhammer answers the question why such heterogeneous parts as elements of the theory of argumentation borrowed from the ancient tradition of Vāda (the theory of debate), logic and epistemology, cosmology and the doctrine of the soul and its liberation from the bonds of saṁsāra (soteriology) were combined into the harmonious philosophical system of Nyāya and how this happened during the development of the school due to its becoming aware of itself as a method of searching for truth (and what this truth is from the point of view of Nyāya), how this was helped by creative borrowing from another philosophical school – Yoga. The publication is prefaced by a brief history of the Viennese oriental and indological school, to which Oberhammer belongs.

The Argumentative Function in the Poetry of Shihabuldeen Al-Azzazi (710 A.H)

Rhetorical argumentation theory is concerned with studying rhetorical techniques that aim to stimulate the minds of those being addressed, or to raise their support for the issues under discussion in order to reach general agreement. This theory is also concerned with examining and testing the conditions that help initiate and develop argumentation, and the effects resulting from it as well.

Bridging Informal Reasoning and Formal Proving: The Role of Argumentation in Proof-Events

AbstractThis paper explores the relationship between informal reasoning, creativity in mathematics, and problem solving. It underscores the importance of environments that promote interaction, hypothesis generation, examination, refutation, derivation of new solutions, drawing conclusions, and reasoning with others, as key factors in enhancing mathematical creativity. Drawing on argumentation logic, the paper proposes a novel approach to uncover specific characteristics in the development of formalized proving using “proof-events.” Argumentation logic can offer reasoning mechanisms that facilitate these environments. This paper proposes how argumentation can be implemented to discover certain characteristics in the development of formalized proving with “proof-events”. The concept of a proof-event was introduced by Goguen who described mathematical proof as a multi-agent social event involving not only “classical” formal proofs, but also other informal proving actions such as deficient or alleged proofs. Argumentation is an integral component of the discovery process for a mathematical proof since a proof necessitates a dialogue between provers and interpreters to clarify and resolve gaps or assumptions. By formalizing proof-events through argumentation, this paper demonstrates how informal reasoning and conflicts arising during the proving process can be effectively simulated. The paper presents an extended version of the proof-events calculus, rooted in argumentation theories, and highlights the intricate relationships among proof, human reasoning, cognitive processes, creativity, and mathematical arguments.

Oppy on arguments and worldviews: an internal critique

This paper develops an internal critique of Graham Oppy’s metaphilosophy of religion – his theories of argumentation, worldview comparison, and epistemic justification. First, it presents Oppy’s views and his main reasons in their favor. Second, it argues that Oppy is committed to two claims – that only truth-conducive reasons can justify philosophical belief and that such justification depends entirely on one’s judgments about the theoretical virtues of comprehensive worldviews – that jointly entail the unacceptable conclusion that philosophical beliefs cannot be justified. Third, it briefly argues that of his two claims, it is his thoroughgoing coherentism that should be rejected.

The front page as a canvas for multimodal argumentation: Brexit in the Greek press

In this paper, we analyze the front pages of mainstream Greek newspapers with the highest circulation reporting the official result of the Brexit referendum in 2016. Our analysis seeks to extract the standpoints and arguments that circulated in the Greek mainstream press on that day by studying the headlines and visuals on the front page. We study the front page not merely as an informative genre but crucially as an argumentative one, where the arguments can be reconstructed with the help of tools from argumentation theory combined with principles from multimodal critical discourse analysis. The proposed approach makes it possible to compare how the different ideological orientations in the Greek public sphere were steered by the representation of this piece of news. We show that, despite their ideological background, the newspapers under study converge to the construction of Brexit as a menacing phenomenon that puts the EU integration to the test and, as such, as an event that should have been avoided.

Strategic Manoeuvering in 2019 Campaign Speeches in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa: Extended Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

This article investigates how political candidates in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa employed means of strategic manoeuvring during the provincial election campaigns of 2019. It assumes the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, by first reconstructing the argumentation structure, identifying the means of strategic manoeuvring, and finally, critically analysing the prototypical speech acts in the political campaign discourse. The data were collected from the isiXhosa newspaper I’solezwe LesiXhosa during the campaign from February to April 2019. The findings demonstrate commissives and assertives as the prototypical speech acts in the political argumentative discourse in the Eastern Cape Province. In addition, dissociation is manifested in multiple contexts to persuade the audience of the standpoint that the opposition parties are more visionary than the incumbent party, African National Congress.

A Design Theory for Certification Presentations

Prior information system research remains inconsistent of the effects of system certifications. In their current use, certifications are often reduced to graphical seals. This approach fails to incorporate detailed assurance information emanating from the certification process. To address this gap, we adopt a design science approach and deploy a four-phase research design to clarify how to design impactful IS certification presentations. First, we identify sources of users' limited understanding of seals and formulate a design proposal for a certification presentation by drawing upon the elaboration likelihood model. In the second phase, we formulate and validate a set of design meta-requirements and guidelines to improve certification presentation, using cognitive load theory and Toulmin's model of argumentation as kernel theories. In the third phase, new certification presentations that comply with the proposed guidelines are developed and evaluated for their effectiveness. We show that presentations that augment seal-based certification presentations with richer assurance information improve certification effectiveness. This increases users' assurance and trust perceptions when the presentations align with the users' cognitive information processing needs in ways that reduce their cognitive load and enhance argument quality of assurance information.

Rhetoric Ambiguity: A Pragmatic Study on Selected Poetic Excerpts

Objectives: The study aimed to investigate the rhetoric ambiguity which results from the semantic senses that morphologically similar words have and analyzes some selected poetic excerpts rhetorically and pragmatically.
 Methods: A descriptive-analytical approach was used to achieve the aim of the study; by applying the mechanisms of pragmatic theory to uncover the implicit meanings and the deep structure of poetry. Thus, the study analyzes these excerpts in light of the speech acts theory, the implicature theory, the conversational implicature, and contextuality. The study covers two frameworks: a theoretical one in which we define rhetoric ambiguity, and a procedural one in which some poetic examples are analyzed.
 Results: The findings indicated that pragmatics is very effective for analyzing the poetic examples, and for uncovering the implicit meanings and the deep structure of poetry, especially in the case of elliptical ambiguity. Moreover, metaphor types that encompass ambiguity differ according to the context. Finally, the study also found that there are rhetorical purposes and implicatures that are determined according to the speech acts in light of the rhetoric ambiguity.
 Conclusions: The study recommended carrying out more research about the field of Arabic rhetoric according to the data of new rhetoric (the argument theory). It also recommends casting light on the old rhetoric terms and involoves convincing objectives that make it possible to study and testify according to the argument and pragmatic theories

Biased Processing and Opinion Polarization: Experimental Refinement of Argument CommunicationTheory in the Context of the Energy Debate

We combine empirical experimental research on biased argument processing with a computational theory of group deliberation to overcome the micro–macro problem of sociology and to clarify the role of biased processing in debates around energy. We integrate biased processing into the framework of argument communication theory in which agents exchange arguments about a certain topic and adapt opinions accordingly. Our derived mathematical model fits significantly better to the experimentally observed attitude changes than the neutral argument processing assumption made in previous models. Our approach provides new insight into the relationship between biased processing and opinion polarization. Our analysis reveals a sharp qualitative transition from attitude moderation to polarization at the individual level. At the collective level, we find that weak biased processing significantly accelerates group decision processes, whereas strong biased processing leads to a meta-stable conflictual state of bi-polarization that becomes persistent as the bias increases.

Virtual element method for the modified transmission eigenvalue problem in inverse scattering theory

In this paper, we present the virtual element approximation for the modified transmission eigenvalue problem. The eigenvalue problem arises in inverse scattering theory for artificial inhomogeneous media characterized as a metamaterial. By the shifting argument and spectral approximation theory of compact operators, we prove the correct spectral approximation of the virtual element scheme, and derive the optimal order error estimates for the eigenfunctions and the double order for the eigenvalues. Finally, we implement numerical experiments to illustrate behaviors of the standard and serendipity virtual element schemes, and the finite element scheme.