Exchange Of Arguments Research Articles

‘Argumentative Disobedience’ as a Strategy to Confront Hate Speech

AbstractIn this paper, I examine argumentative strategies that social movements can follow to counter hate speech. I begin by reconstructing the disagreement space of the abortion debate in Argentina as a polylogue, identifying the protests of the social movement Pañuelos verdes as argumentative contributions. I then describe two different forms of hate speech used in response to the movement’s protests. I argue that hate speech discredits the position of Pañuelos verdes in the abortion debate and depicts their protests as social threats. Subsequently, I discuss three argumentative strategies that social movements can implement to address hate speech: arguing with hate speakers; advocating for a dialogue with restrictions; and opting for argumentative disobedience. Arguing with hate speakers aims to make hate speakers retract hate speech by exposing the undesirability of using hateful messages in argumentative exchanges. Advocating for a dialogue with restrictions aims to impose limited bans on public speech in order to ensure equal participation of arguers in argumentation. Finally, I propose the notion of argumentative disobedience to describe communicative responses to hate speech that aim to bring bystanders in line with the position of social movements in public debates.

Pre-trial protocol in civil proceedings

The scientific article examines the legal nature of the pre-trial protocol in civil proceedings. The institution of judicial evidence was subject to change in connection with the latest reforms of the civil procedure legisla-tion. This has led to the emergence of new institutions and the pre-trial protocol in civil proceedings is such. Until 2022, the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter CPC RK) did not have di-rect legal regulation of this institution, and accordingly, no theoretical studies were conducted on this issue. In civil proceedings, the prototype of the institute of pre-trial protocol was a foreign legal institution, such as the disclosure of evidence and the exchange of arguments, characteristic of English and American procedural law. The practical necessity of many aspects of such a phenomenon as the pre-trial protocol, the incomplete-ness of theoretical developments and the need to improve legislation determined the relevance of the topic of the scientific article. It should be recognized that the mechanism for drawing up a pre-trial protocol, in fact, designed to ensure the implementation of the principles of competition and equality of the parties, was not sufficiently enshrined in the civil procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. At the same time, consistent legislative regulation of the activities of bodies for the disclosure of evidence in civil proceedings is required. The institution of pre-trial protocol in civil proceedings requires regulation and integration at the legislative level, since the mechanism of conclusion in the current CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan has not been fully investigated.

Deliberative Democracy and Pragma-Dialectics Related

AbstractThis paper adopts a pragma-dialectic approach to explore inclusion in real-world argumentation. Having outlined theories of deliberative democracy—focussing on Habermas’s discourse model—and pragma-dialectic methods for analysing argumentative exchanges in the real world, we then relate them. From this we identify the potential for using the enhanced detail of pragma-dialectic analysis to constructively understand dynamics of inclusion in the political decision processes of central concern to deliberative democratic theories.In the remainder of the article we illustrate this potential with our own pragma-dialectic analysis of an instance of real-world argumentation in a political policymaking process—a deliberative forum in the contentious field of mental health. The detail afforded by the pragma-dialectic method allows us to more clearly identify the complex layers and dynamics of argument involved in these policy deliberations, allowing insights into mechanisms for inclusion in deliberations, relative to the parties to such deliberations, their roles and competing interests and perspectives.By relating the two fields of deliberative democratic theory and pragma-dialectics this article aims to develop their complementary potential—in particular by suggesting, and briefly illustrating—how pragma-dialectic methods might enhance analysis of the dynamics of argumentation in political policymaking processes, in particular as an aid to constructive reflection on those processes by theorists and participants together.

The effects of politeness in shaping discourse in online debates

Computer-supported collaborative argumentation is an online activity that can engage students in deep discussion and analysis of complex problems. Given the potentially confrontational nature of argumentation, using polite language becomes a strategic approach to prevent breakdowns in group communication and nurture productive dialogues. This study aims to understand how politeness and argumentation moves influence subsequent conversation dynamics in online debates. Student postings in threaded discussions (from 20 online debates containing 2,008 messages posted by students across five semesters of a graduate-level course on distance education) were coded and scored on politeness and impoliteness using natural language processing software. The scored postings were examined to determine how impoliteness and politeness impact students’ proclivity to engage in and produce more sustained argumentative exchanges to evaluate presented claims thoroughly. The findings show that impoliteness steadily increased by up to 84% as contentious discussion threads reached 7 levels deep, and impoliteness was significantly higher in frequency in postings presenting challenges. Correspondingly, the use of politeness increased steadily by up to 139% as discussion threads reached 6 levels deep, with the frequency of politeness nearly equal across postings presenting challenges, explanations, and evidence.

With me it is exactly the same: second stories and their argumentative function in child talk

Conversation circles in kindergartens can foster discursive abilities such as argumentation. This paper analyzes argumentation in conversation circles in a kindergarten with respect to the function of narrative argumentation. We focus on second stories as a specific narrative form that is characterized by relating in content and form to a before told narrative thereby displaying similarity and alignment. In this paper, we will analyze videographed conversation circles in a kindergarten. Our methodological approach is interactional and qualitative, informed by conversation analysis and narrative analysis. We will argue that preschool children use second stories for argumentative purposes in cooperative argumentative exchanges and through them produce interactional alignment.

In all seriousness: Laughter in the German Reichstag, 1871–1914

ABSTRACT The ideal of parliamentary debate is often construed in terms of a disimpassioned exchange of arguments. Yet in actual practice, emotions play a key role. As recent studies of French, British, and other parliaments have shown, a closer look at the uses of laughter in the plenary debates can provide a useful entry point for a better understanding of the atmospheric dimension of debates. Focusing on the early decades of the German Imperial Reichstag, this article considers the varying modes of parliamentary humour, laughter and ridicule and their significance in the context of rhetorical struggles and processes of political in- and exclusion. In comparative dialogue with research on other parliaments, it contributes to a more precise characterization of the internal dynamics of an institution still very much in flux. While contemporaries made a sharp distinction between exclusionary laughter and inclusionary mirth (Heiterkeit), a closer look at the plenary interactions shows that while parliamentary laughter performed many different functions, on the whole, it primarily constituted a mechanism of de-escalation. As such, parliamentary humour did not stand in opposition to (rational) debate, but played a key role in the management of difference and conflict that the parliament was created to facilitate.

Sketching the vision of the Web of Debates.

The exchange of comments, opinions, and arguments in blogs, forums, social media, wikis, and review websites has transformed the Web into a modern agora, a virtual place where all types of debates take place. This wealth of information remains mostly unexploited: due to its textual form, such information is difficult to automatically process and analyse in order to validate, evaluate, compare, combine with other types of information and make it actionable. Recent research in Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing, and Computational Argumentation has provided some solutions, which still cannot fully capture important aspects of online debates, such as various forms of unsound reasoning, arguments that do not follow a standard structure, information that is not explicitly expressed, and non-logical argumentation methods. Tackling these challenges would give immense added-value, as it would allow searching for, navigating through and analyzing online opinions and arguments, obtaining a better picture of the various debates for a well-intentioned user. Ultimately, it may lead to increased participation of Web users in democratic, dialogical interchange of arguments, more informed decisions by professionals and decision-makers, as well as to an easier identification of biased, misleading, or deceptive arguments. This paper presents the vision of the Web of Debates, a more human-centered version of the Web, which aims to unlock the potential of the abundance of argumentative information that currently exists online, offering its users a new generation of argument-based web services and tools that are tailored to their real needs.

Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study

PurposeIn intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations.MethodA qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families.ResultsSeventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor’s line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together.ConclusionThis study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation.

杜亞泉과 陳獨秀 논쟁의 검토

This thesis examines the debate between Du yaquan, Editor-in-chief of 『Eastern Miscellany(東方雜誌)』 and Chen duxiu, leading figure in the New Culture Movement-. In Spetember of 1918, Chen raised suspicion and argued through the pages of 『New Youth(新靑年)』, that 『Eastern Miscellany』 is supporting the idea of revival of hereditary monarchy. Du countered this suspicion on 『Eastern Miscellany』 three months later. This exchange of arguments through the pages of their own magazine is often regarded as starting point of ‘East-West (Cultural) Debate’ in later studies.BR In 1990s’, studies on Du yaquan began, From the early 1910s’, media activities of Du yaquan were mainly focused on political proposals. He was concentrating on how to establish constitutional politics in China. After the establishment of the Republic of China, Du focused on developing discussions on the relationship between individuals, society and state, during this process he often emphasized the importance of Chinnese civilization. On the other hand, one of the main activities of the New Culture Movement was a critique on Chinese civilization, especially Confucianism political ethics. Among them, Chen duxiu was the one who had the most severe criticism on effect of Confucianism ethics in republic of China.BR Previous studies on this debate, mainly focused on how Du and Chen had differed in understanding of the Chinese civilization. In this thesis, by I pointed out that ‘debate’ between Du and Chen was not a result of their diffenrence in understanding of Chinese civilization, but it was rather Chen portraying Du as a person opposed to republican politics in order to emphasize the discussion he had argued through his journalism activities. In this process, Chen formed his argument by ignoring the context of Du’s media activity. Du was one who constantly supported the idea of settling republican politics in China. But in the debate, Du only pointed out the logical fallacies of Chen. In response to Du’s argument, Chen raised the question again and labelled Du as one who opposed republican politics. Image of Du yaquan, as an opposer of Chen duxiu and New culture movement was maintained for a quite long time.

Explicit civility (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)

Explicit civility (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)

Inclusivity (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)

Inclusivity (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)

Interactivity/Reciprocity (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)

Interactivity/Reciprocity (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)

Rationality (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)

Rationality (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality)

Revisiting twentieth-century argumentation through debate: The University of Puerto Rico’s 1928 tour of the United States

Speech and debate have been central in shaping traditions of argumentation in the United States. While much of debate history has focused on individual nation-states, attention to twentieth century intercollegiate debate tours offers one way for argumentation scholars to consider the transgeographic flows of argument exchange. This essay makes the case for thinking about the history of debate across borders. In order to contribute to this special issue’s focus on argumentation in the Americas, I offer the example of the University of Puerto Rico’s 1928 debate tour of the eastern United States, in which student debaters were able to ‘speak back’ to U.S. imperialism through embodied performances that compelled audiences to consider different perspectives on education, language, citizenship, and sovereignty.

Argumentation, cognition, and the epistemic benefits of cognitive diversity

The social epistemology of science would benefit from paying more attention to the nature of argumentative exchanges. Argumentation is not only a cognitive activity but a collaborative social activity whose functioning needs to be understood from a psychological and communicative perspective. Thus far, social and organizational psychology has been used to discuss how social diversity affects group deliberation by changing the mindset of the participants. Argumentative exchanges have comparable effects, but they depend on cognitive diversity and emerge through critical interaction. An example of a cognitive psychological theory is discussed that explains how mutual reasoning affects how we think, make decisions, and solve problems, as well as how cognitive biases may facilitate an efficient division of cognitive labor. These observations are compared with the existing results in the social epistemology of science. Moreover, I explicate the conceptual differences between the distributed and social processing of information. While argumentative exchanges belong to the latter domain, most existing simulations model distributed processing, which may compromise their real-world relevance and proper conceptual interpretation. However, I aim not to criticize the existing simulation methods but to promote an approach from the cognitive psychology of reasoning that complements the current use of organizational psychology and computer simulations by investigating a different set of mechanisms relating to similar phenomena of interest in the social epistemology of science.

Utterer Meaning, Misunderstanding, and Cultural Knowledge

All versions of Grice’s theory of utterer meaning couch success in terms of stressing the hearer’s ability to recognize what is intended. This ties naturally to the cooperative principle and the maxims of conversation. A later additional maxim of manner emphasizes that one should always facility the audience’s response in one’s communication. Meaning communication is successful with the right “uptake”, whether seen in the desires or beliefs that Grice addressed in the audience, or the achievement of understanding or comprehension that critics identified. In retrospective reflections, Grice saw the latter necessitated by the former. The point remains that if Grice is correct in requiring audience recognition for the successful communication of meaning, then this poses serious challenges for scholars working in argumentation. It provides, for example, an additional problem when exploring cross-cultural argumentative exchanges where societies have had no prior experience of each other, their norms, or shared beliefs. Moreover, the conditions that it requires makes misunderstanding a central concern. These problems are explored in the paper, beginning with an initial assumption that Grice is correct about meaning, with a view to considering whether there is need for modifications to Grice’s theory.

On the rational resolution of (deep) disagreements

Disagreements come in all shapes and sizes, but epistemologists and argumentation theorists have singled out a special category referred to as deep disagreements. These deep disagreements are thought to pose philosophical and practical difficulties pertaining to their rational resolution. In this paper, I start with a critique of the widespread claim that deep disagreements are qualitatively different from normal disagreements because they arise from a difference in ‘fundamental principles’ or ‘hinge commitments.’ I then defend the following two claims: (1) All disagreements are deep to the extent that they are actual disagreements. This first claim implies, I will argue, that disagreements typically regarded as normal (‘shallow’) can be explained away as misunderstandings or communicative mishaps. (2) The resolution of a disagreement can be rational either through a joint experience of mutually recognized facts or through an exchange of arguments that leads to a reformulation of the disagreement that, in this new form, lends itself to a resolution through a joint experience of mutually recognized facts. I conclude with a reflection on the consequences of these two theses for the idea of deep disagreement and that of rational resolution.

Two hostile bishops? A reexamination of the relationship between Peter Browne and George Berkeley beyond their alleged controversy

ABSTRACT For decades scholars have argued that there was a heated argumentative exchange between the bishop of Cork and Ross, Peter Browne, and the bishop of Cloyne, George Berkeley. Thus, they have unduly reduced Browne to a mere adversary of Berkeley. They also thereby distorted the perception of the Irish intellectual milieu in the seventeenth / eighteenth century and the way its participants influenced one another. Contrary to this controversy-reading I establish how ill-supported the prevailing narrative of the relationship between the bishops of Cork and Cloyne is. This, in turn, allows me to demonstrate that the discussion about the problem of divine analogy in seventeenth / eighteenth century Ireland was embedded in a larger context, which has hitherto been too little appreciated. I will illustrate this point by demonstrating that the two bishops not only reacted to William King's solution to the problem of divine analogy, but that they did so by accepting his ‘resemblance-requirement'. That is, King’s notion that divine representation requires resemblance. This indicates how the discussion about the problem of divine analogy in seventeenth / eighteenth century Ireland was influenced by the way these churchmen thought about the relation of resemblance, representation, and knowledge more generally.

Self-Persuasion: Evidence from Field Experiments at International Debating Competitions

Laboratory evidence shows that when people have to argue for a given position, they persuade themselves about the position’s factual and moral superiority. Such self-persuasion limits the potential of communication to resolve conflict and reduce polarization. We test for this phenomenon in a field setting, at international debating competitions that randomly assign experienced and motivated debaters to argue one side of a topical motion. We find self-persuasion in factual beliefs and confidence in one’s position. Effect sizes are smaller than in the laboratory, but robust to a one-hour exchange of arguments and a tenfold increase in incentives for accuracy. (JEL C93, D12, D72, D83, D91, I23)

Prescribed argumentation, actual argumentation, reported argumentation

Abstract This article starts from the observation that, in order to ensure their legitimacy, the modes of governance in place in most Western democracies make more room for citizen participation in decision-making processes. The result is the implementation of various participatory mechanisms, many of which seek to stimulate a citizen’s argumentative expression. Based on a case study (the public debate on a gold mine project in French Guiana), we observe the norms that govern such participation processes and their implementation in the argumentative exchanges.