Argumentative Discussions Research Articles

Modeling the Protagonist: The Strategic Use of Discourse Voices

An argumentative text can be reconstructed as an argumentative discussion between a protagonist and an antagonist. However, such a text is usually not a literal report of a discussion. It is the author of the text who determines how issues are presented, how claims are modeled, how the development of the discussion is presented. Especially when a text has embedded discourse voices that can fulfill the roles of protagonist or antagonist, the author of the text can strongly suggest a specific assignment, suppressing alternatives. In this article examples are presented that show how an author exploits linguistic means—a strategic choice of causal connectives—to suggest a specific reconstruction. The question is raised whether a derailment of this behavior of the author should be characterized as committing the fallacy of the straw man.

The Treatment of Fallacies in Argumentative Situations During Mediation Sessions

The study examines how participants in mediation sessions treat fallacies in naturally-occurring argumentative discussions and with what consequences for their development. Taking an interactional approach to studying fallacies, the research sheds light on the nature of fallacies, how they are achieved, and what they are accomplishing in the course of interaction. The fallacies are considered to be breaches of the interaction order and/or the institutional order. Two types of fallacies that occur in the process of these interactions are distinguished: traditional (i.e., fallacies that date back to Aristotle's time and are widely recognized by argumentation researchers) and non-traditional (i.e., wrong moves that do not belong to the traditional list of fallacies but, nevertheless, were treated as such by recipients themselves in the process of interaction). The findings show that whether an argumentation move is considered to be fallacious or non-fallacious depends on the orientation of participants themselves to this interaction phenomenon and on the context it is used in. The research provides the support for the idea that the participants' responses are crucial for realizing the potential of the fallacious moves.

Caminhos para a integralidade na educação profissional técnica de nível médio em saúde

A relação entre o profissional, com suas técnicas e saberes, e o usuário, com suas necessidades e o desejo de retornar a sua autonomia, é um dos espaços que pontua a integralidade na produção em saúde. Ambiente em que profissional e usuário têm poderes e autonomia e podem colaborar ou competir. O objetivo neste estudo é compreender e problematizar o termo 'integral' na educação profissional e na saúde. Este termo está relacionado a formas de se produzir saúde no interior dos serviços e à formação com acesso à totalidade dos saberes envolvidos no trabalho e na educação. Nesta perspectiva, utilizamos a pesquisa bibliográfica de base qualitativa, através de sucessivas leituras do material bibliográfico, elaborando uma discussão argumentativa entre os diferentes referenciais teóricos do campo da saúde e da educação. Ao fim, podemos identificar os distintos entrelaçamentos que constituem a integralidade integral na formação em saúde.

An Abstract Framework for Modeling Argumentation in Virtual Communities

Classic argumentative discussions can be found in a variety of domains from traditional scientific publishing to today’s modern social software. An interactive argumentative discussion usually consists of an initial proposition stated by a single creator, followed by supporting propositions or counter-propositions from other contributors, usually part of the same virtual community. Thus, the actual argumentation semantics is hidden in the content created by the contributors. Although there are approaches that try to deal with this challenge, most of them focus on a particular domain, limiting the scope of the argumentation to that domain only. In this article, the authors describe an abstract model for argumentation which captures the semantics independently of the domain. Following a modularized approach, the authors also take into account additional important aspects of the argumentation, like the provenance information or its evolution (the temporal side). Consequently, they present a possible usage of the framework in the context of virtual communities.

Manoeuvring Strategically with Praeteritio

This paper investigates the role that the stylistic device of praeteritio (or paralipsis) can play in arguers’ attempts to reconcile their rhetorical with their dialectical aims by manoeuvring strategically when carrying out particular discussion moves of the dialectical procedure for resolving a dispute. First, attention will be paid to the ways in which praeteritio can be realized in discourse. Next, an analysis is given of the effects the use of praeteritio may have as a result of the presentational means that are employed. This analysis will be used to establish the possibilities for strategic manoeuvring with this device in the different stages of an argumentative discussion. Finally, an indication is given of how the types of strategic manoeuvring that a praeteritio can be instrumental in may derail, and in which violations of the rules for critical discussion such derailed manoeuvrings may result.

Secondary school students’ collaboration during dyadic debates face-to-face and through computer chat

Communicative competence needed in today’s constructive learning environments both in virtual and physical classrooms requires most of all critical and argumentative thinking skills as well as abilities to use reciprocal and collaborative language. This study clarifies the quality of secondary school students’ collaboration in dyadic face-to-face and computer chat debates during argumentative discussions. The speech acts produced in 24 debates were first classified into either on-task or off-task categories. The on-task speech acts were then further classified into six collaborative and two non-collaborative categories. The students commonly presented questions and made requests for clarification or reactions as well as responded to issues put forward by their interlocutor. However, they seldom engaged in collaborative completion or recapitulated their arguments. The study suggests that while students appear to have the basic cognitive and social prerequisites for collaborative learning situations, in future they should be encouraged to collaboratively complete each others’ thoughts and recapitulate their own arguments.

Argument-based learning communities

This paper presents the idea of automated learning in virtual communities through “tarka”-based argumentative discussions. Prior to argumentative discussion, both the discussing agents will have various degrees of belief about the subject of discussion, in their respective knowledge bases. To attain valid knowledge about a particular subject, both the participants voluntarily undergo a tarka process where arguments and counter-arguments are interchanged, pertaining to several knowledge-sharing criteria. At the end of discussion, gathered valid beliefs about the subject of discussion are generated as definitions from the knowledge base, to demonstrate the value of knowledge shared (and learned) via argumentation.

Supporting mathematical literacy: examples from a cross-curricular project

Mathematical literacy implies the capacity to apply mathematical knowledge to various and context-related problems in a functional, flexible and practical way. Improving mathematical literacy requires a learning environment that stimulates students cognitively as well as allowing them to collect practical experiences through connections with the real world. In order to achieve this, students should be confronted with many different facets of reality. They should be given the opportunity to participate in carrying out experiments, to be exposed to verbal argumentative discussions and to be involved in model-building activities. This leads to the idea of integrating science into maths education. Two sequences of lessons were developed and tried out at the University of Education Schwabisch Gmund integrating scientific topics and methods into maths lessons at German secondary schools. The results show that the scientific activities and their connection with reality led to well-based discussions. The connection between the phenomenon and the model remained remarkably close during the entire series of lessons. At present the sequences of lessons are integrated in the European ScienceMath project, a joint project between universities and schools in Denmark, Finland, Slovenia and Germany (see www.sciencemath.ph-gmuend.de).

Comments on ‘Arguing ‘for’ the Patient. Informed Consent and Strategic Maneuvering in Doctor–Patient Interaction’

Schulz and Rubinelli’s project ‘Informed consent and strategic maneuvering in doctor–patient interaction’ provides an excellent opportunity for studying argumentation in a specific institutional context because a medical consultation is a special communicative activity type that may involve argumentative discussion. Before engaging in empirical research regarding such a consultation it is necessary to make a conceptional analysis of this type of doctor–patient interaction. One first needs to give a general characterization of the type of interaction concerned: what is the structure of the interaction in a doctor–patient consultation in terms of speech acts, role taking and time constraints? For doing so a better understanding is required of the type of difference of opinion that will be at issue in such a consultation. What type of standpoint initiates the discussion? Which parts can be distinguished in the activity type of medical consultation and which of them are typically or potentially argumentative? What are the roles of the two participants in each of these cases? Is it the doctor or the patient who initiates the discussion by putting forward a standpoint or can this be done by either of them? Schulz and Rubinelli characterize doctor–patient interaction as an ‘info-suasive dialogue.’ This characterization is, however, problematic. The authors claim that the interaction partly can be seen as an instance of an information-seeking dialogue and partly an argumentative encounter, ‘at a higher level.’ But in a consultation argumentation is not necessarily required. The patient may be in complete agreement with everything the doctor says and the doctor may not expect the patient to disagree with him so that no anticipation of doubt is necessary. Since argumentation is not a constitutive part of this activity type it is not automatically a ‘persuasive’ type of dialogue. Of course the moment one the parties has reason to believe that the other party is not or will not be in full agreement with him,

Black Box Arguments

“Black box argument” is a metaphor for modular components of argumentative discussion that are, within a particular discussion, not open to expansion. In public policy debate such as the controversy over abstinence-only sex education, scientific conclusions enter the discourse as black boxes consisting of a result returned from an external and largely impenetrable process. In one way of looking at black box arguments, there is nothing fundamentally new for the argumentation theorist: A black box argument is very like any other appeal to authority, and what might be said about any particular form of black box will turn out to be a particularized version of what might be said about evaluating arguments based on authority. But in another way of looking at black box arguments, they are a constantly evolving technology for coming to conclusions and making these conclusions broadly acceptable. Black boxes are to argumentation what material inventions are to engineering and related sciences. They are anchored in and constrained by fundamental natural processes, but they are also new things that require theoretical explication and practical assessment.

Appropriation of a shared workspace: Organizing principles and their application

The use and effects of a CSCL-tool are not always predictable from the properties of the tool alone, but depend on how that tool is appropriated. This paper presents the findings from a case study about the appropriation of a graphical shared workspace. When students are presented with a new tool they may encounter competing constraints and multiple possibilities for interacting with it. We argue that during critical events the students make choices, and in order to collaborate, coordinate these choices as a group. We study appropriation by looking into the ways in which small groups organize their contributions during a computer-mediated argumentative discussion. The results of our study illustrate how certain principles for organization emerge from an implicit negotiation of conventions, with mutual influence between the students and the tool.

La Educación Intercultural Bilingüe: Representaciones y Prácticas Sociales de la Otredad

It is presented an argumentative theoretical and methodological discussion for the analysis of intercultural bilingual education programs (EIB) in Chile. It is proposed an approach that deepens into the implementation of national policies to local areas, highlighting the role assumed by the local government agent in its performance and in the construction of the state and, particularly in its relationship with the indigenous peoples. Based on the analysis of this program, it is deepened in the representations and social practices that are transmitted in respect to the indigenous otherness from the teachers’ speech.

The Language of Argumentation in Dutch

How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinion by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other’s argumentation? How do they criticize each other’s argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions this short essay provides a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.

How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation

This paper argues that in all areas of communication theory, we should give greater consideration to the possibility of expression affecting the expresser. A general model of the effects of messages on both senders and receivers is introduced, organizing and resolving contradictions in past research by distinguishing between effects of the expectation of expression, effects of message composition, and effects of a message being released to others. When applied to deliberation, the model results in several experimentally testable explanations of causal mechanisms involved in deliberation’s predicted effects, a stronger basis for the distinction between deliberative and argumentative discussion, and several tentative practical recommendations for encouraging open-mindedness in deliberation. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x When both scholars and laypeople attempt to explain communication, they most often do so using a reception-effects paradigm in which all effects of communication are assumed to result from message reception. Communication is thought of in terms of several related metaphors, such as information flow and information transmission (Krippendorff, 1993), all of which imply that preexisting information travels in some form from one actor to another and then has its effects, if any, on arrival. This paradigm guides our thinking away from several possibilities, including that the act of expression might change the message sender, that expressed ideas often do not exist intact, if at all, in the sender’s mind prior to expression, and that attention to— and thus effects of—received messages may result from the expectation of being able to respond. This paper offers a general model of the effects of both sending and receiving messages, organizes the disconnected but substantial empirical evidence for its expression-effects propositions, and illustrates the model’s utility by using it to generate alternative explanations of some of the predicted effects of deliberation.

Web-Based Collaboration and Decision Making Support

Arguing that a varying level of formality needs to be offered in systems supporting argumentative collaboration, this article proposes an incremental formalization approach that has been adopted in the development of CoPe_it!, a Web-based tool that complies with collaborative principles and practices, and provides members of communities engaged in argumentative discussions and decision making processes with the appropriate means to collaborate towards the solution of diverse issues. According to the proposed approach, incremental formalization can be achieved through the consideration of alternative projections of a collaborative workspace.

Pragmatic Inconsistency and Credibility

A critic may attack an arguer personally by pointing out that the arguer’s position is pragmatically inconsistent: the arguer does not practice what he preaches. A number of authors hold that such attacks can be part of a good argumentative discussion. However, there is a difficulty in accepting this kind of contribution as potentially legitimate, for the reason that there is nothing wrong for a protagonist to have an inconsistent position, in the sense of committing himself to mutually inconsistent propositions. If so, any such charge seems to be irrelevant. The questions to be answered in this essay are: what, if any, is the dialectical rationale for this type of criticism, and in what situations, if any, is this kind of charge dialectically legitimate? It will be shown that these attacks can be dialectically legitimate, in special circumstances, and that they can be seen as strategic␣manoeuvres where a party attempts to reconcile his dialectical and his rhetorical objectives.

The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory.

In this study, the effects of argumentation-eliciting interventions on conceptual understanding in evolution were investigated. Two experiments were conducted: In the 1st, 76 undergraduates were randomly assigned to dyads to collaboratively solve and answer items on evolution; half of them were instructed to conduct an argumentative discussion, whereas control dyads were only asked to collaborate. In the 2nd experiment, 42 singletons participated in 1 of 2 conditions: Experimental students engaged in monological argumentation on their own solution and a confederate's solution in response to prompts read by the confederate, whereas in the control condition they merely shared their solutions. Conceptual gains were assessed on immediate and delayed posttests. In both experiments, students in the argumentative conditions showed larger learning gains on the delayed posttest than control students. Students in argumentative conditions were able to preserve gains that were obtained immediately following the intervention, whereas control participants either lost immediate gains (dialogical condition) or did not improve their conceptual understanding at any time (monological condition).

Don’t say that!

According to pragma-dialectical methodology, a party in an argumentative discussion can be assumed to manoeuvre strategically between dialectical and rhetorical objectives. One confrontational form of strategic manoeuvring occurs when a critic charges an arguer with advancing a standpoint that has socially harmful consequences. In special situations this form of manoeuvring can be dialectically sound, for example when the standpoint is advanced in a way that damages the dialectical process. The boundary between fallacious and dialectically sound applications of this form of manoeuvring is examined by looking for the manoeuvring’s soundness conditions.

50 years ago in the journal of pediatrics: Why Johnny can’t read: Fact or fallacy

50 years ago in the journal of pediatrics: Why Johnny can’t read: Fact or fallacy

Texts, Tensions, Subtexts, and Implied Agendas: My Quest for Cultural Pluralism in a Decade of Writing

Scanning my own academic work to discover hidden agendas revealed underlying issues that seemed important in cultural pluralism. They included the need for recognition and for public spaces in culturally pluralistic environments where the experiences of individuals from very different background are listened to and valued. It was particularly interesting that such settings seemed to be highly conducive to inquiry. The differences among people’s experiences intensified an implicit inquiry dynamic when narrative was the medium of choice rather than argumentative discussion. In those settings, as well as in the reexamination of my own writing, becoming clearer about what was only indirectly expressed earlier brought greater clarity about important issues.