Neutral Arguments Research Articles

What do other people think he deserves? Social influence on utilization of mitigating information regarding a violent offender's unfortunate life history.

The blameworthiness of an offender is often discussed in groups. Yet, the research literature overwhelmingly examines individuals assessing blameworthiness in isolation. To address this gap in the literature, the present study examines group deliberations about blameworthiness, with a particular focus on how group deliberations impact utilization of mitigating information about an offender's unfortunate life history. Participants from introductory psychology courses at a U.S. university were placed in groups of two or three and each group also included a confederate who followed a script. Groups were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In one condition (deed only), groups learned only about the offender's heinous crimes. In the three remaining conditions, participants also received a historicist narrative regarding how the offender's unfortunate history deformed his moral character. These conditions differed in terms of the confederate's arguments: Neutral arguments, arguments to ignore the narrative, or arguments to give great weight to the narrative. Results showed that the historicist narrative was particularly effective at reducing outrage and increasing compassion when the confederate argued for its utilization. The reduction in outrage mediated a reduction in spiteful punitiveness toward the offender. Interestingly, the confederate who urged fellow deliberators to ignore the historicist narrative had no impact on outrage or compassion. We also examined mediation of the impact of historicist narratives on outrage and compassion. We found that when the confederate remained neutral the impact of historicist narratives on outrage and compassion was mediated via diminished perceptions of the offender's control of self-formation. This mirrors what is typically found in prior work focused on individual judgments. In contrast, when the confederate argued that great weight should be given to the narrative, reductions in outrage were mediated via diminished perceptions of offender freedom of action. This pattern of mediation is not typically found but has been found in one previous study where participants received social encouragement to mitigate blame. Results are discussed in terms of how social influence might alter the inferences draw from historicist narratives. Suggestions for future research on social influence in the context of blame are presented.

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.

A few or several? Construal, quantity, and argumentativity

AbstractThis study examines two seemingly similar quantifiers, a few and several, and argues that the differences between them go beyond the (slightly) different quantities they each denote. Specifically, we argue that several construes its nominal complement as composed of individuated entities, which renders them more prominent, and thus a stronger basis in support of a conclusion the speaker is arguing for. We base our analysis on two experiments and a corpus study. The experiments show that there is indeed an argumentative difference between the quantifiers, and the corpus study points to the discourse factors behind it. In comparison with a few, several is associated with a higher discourse prominence for its complement (greater individuation, significance) and with greater argumentative strength. Based on this data, we characterize the quantifiers’ prototypical discourse profiles. A typical instance of several occurs in persuasive genres, refers to a not-so-small quantity, construes the plural entity as composed of individuated entities, and contributes to a strong argument. A typical instance of a few occurs in non-persuasive genres, denotes a small quantity, construes the entities composing the plural entity as un-individuated, and contributes to a weak or neutral argument.

New Comparison Theorems to Investigate the Asymptotic Behavior of Even-Order Neutral Differential Equations

Based on a comparison with first-order equations, we obtain new criteria for investigating the asymptotic behavior of a class of differential equations with neutral arguments. In this work, we consider the non-canonical case for an even-order equation. We concentrate on the requirements for excluding positive solutions, as the method used considers the symmetry between the positive and negative solutions of the studied equation. The results obtained do not require some restrictions that were necessary to apply previous relevant results in the literature.

Populism as Dog-Whistle Politics: Anti-Elite Discourse and Sentiments Toward Minority Groups

AbstractPast research has devoted more attention to the consequences of populism for party politics and democratic governance than to its effects on public attitudes—and particularly, how populist claims interact with nationalism to exacerbate exclusionary beliefs among the public. Using online survey experiments, we examine whether exposure to populism increases out-group antipathy among Democrats and Republicans. In Study 1, we randomly assign respondents to three conditions featuring vignettes based on political speeches: a morally neutral argument, a populist critique of political elites and a morally framed anti-immigration appeal. The results demonstrate that the populist treatment generates lower feeling-thermometer ratings of minority groups than the control condition, but only among Republicans and Trump supporters. Study 2 uses a similar design to evaluate the link between left-wing economic populism and economic nationalism: the populist condition features a critique of economic elites, the nationalist condition blames China for the offshoring of US jobs and the outcome variable measures respondents’ sentiments toward China. Economic nationalism generates increased anti-China sentiment among moderate and conservative Democrats but economic populism does not. Together, these findings suggest that the effects of populism on nationalist antipathies observed in Study 1 are driven by the discursive bundling of anti-elite talk with ethno-nationalism on the political right, which stands in contrast to the decoupling of economic populism from economic nationalism on the left. The former has effectively turned populism into a form of dog-whistle politics among Republicans, and Trump supporters in particular.

The Impossibility of Neutrality? How Courts Engage with the Neutrality Argument

Abstract The principle of state neutrality vis-à-vis religion and belief is contested and illusive. Some scholars even label it an impossible principle. Nevertheless, the meanings and functions assigned to neutrality are often determinative of, among others, the scope of the right to manifest one’s religion in public institutions. Focusing on recent developments in Europe, this article makes two claims: one conceptual and the other doctrinal. The conceptual claim is that neutrality can be deployed either as a shield to protect freedom of religion and belief or as a sword to strike religious claims down. Given that lawmakers and policymakers in Europe are increasingly relying on the second function of neutrality, the article goes on to evaluate how the courts have responded. The doctrinal claim of the article is that courts can engage—and have engaged—with the neutrality argument in three ways: (i) through deference to other interpreters of neutrality; (ii) through substantive interpretation of the neutrality principle; and (iii) through circumvention of the neutrality argument. The article suggests that the third approach may well be preferable.

The Impossibility of Neutrality? How Courts Engage with the Neutrality Argument

The Impossibility of Neutrality? How Courts Engage with the Neutrality Argument

Abortion for minors: do they need parental consent? The case of Kazakhstan

The requirement for parental consent for conducting abortion for minors has always been a highly debatable and controversial ethical issue. In terms of ethical debate, there are manifolded ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of liberal legislation on abortion for the underage girls. Worldwide experience has revealed that the variations in the laws as well as the arguments for and against abortion for teenagers differ depending on geographical location, ethnicity, religion, and cultural peculiarities. This paper juxtaposes arguments in favor for and against parental consent, as well as neutral arguments neither for nor against, narrowing down the issue to the context of Kazakhstan. At the same time, the paper also uses ethical stances of virtuous and utilitarian aspects for argumentative purposes and touching upon the aspects of morality. In conclusion, the paper argues in favor for mitigating the access for underage girls in Kazakhstan on a legislative level and suggests that Kazakhstan should reconsider as well as readapt its regulation and laws on abortion in order to maintain health, happiness, utility, and reproductive abilities of future-to-be mothers. Thus, a law mitigating the access to abortion for youngsters could make a huge positive impact for both underage girls as well as the society to reach an agreeable consensus between the two. Key words: abortion, Kazakhstan, minors, parental consent, ethics.

A factor approach to the performance of ESG leaders and laggards

We introduce a factor approach to performance measurement of global ESG equity investments. We construct ESG pure factor portfolios (PFP) following Fama-MacBeth; then, applying Fama-French (FF) spanning regressions that simultaneously test performance and the validity of adding new ESG factors to the FF 5-factor model. To address endogeneity, we use a GMM-IV estimator. Our ESG portfolios do not generate significant alphas during 2015-2019, corroborating the literature's neutrality argument. We find no sufficient evidence for ESG factors to complement FF5. PFPs, nevertheless, may serve as ESG indices to quantify investment portfolio sustainability risks via performance attribution of the ESG factor tilt.

Biased Processing and Opinion Polarisation: Experimental Refinement of Argument Communication Theory in the Context of the Energy Debate

We combine empirical experimental research on biased argument processing with a computational theory of group deliberation in order to clarify the role of biased processing in debates around energy. The experiment reveals a strong tendency to consider arguments aligned with the current attitude more persuasive and to downgrade those speaking against it. This is integrated into the framework of argument communication theory in which agents exchange arguments about a certain topic and adapt opinions accordingly. We derive a mathematical model that allows to relate the strength of biased processing to expected attitude changes given the specific experimental conditions and find a clear signature of moderate biased processing. We further show that this 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 polarisation. At the individual level our analysis reveals a sharp qualitative transition from attitude moderation to polarisation. At the collective level we find (i.) that weak biased processing significantly accelerates group decision processes whereas (ii.) strong biased processing leads to a persistent conflictual state of subgroup polarisation. While this shows that biased processing alone is sufficient for polarisation, we also demonstrate that homophily may lead to intra-group conflict at significantly lower rates of biased processing.

More Effective Criteria for Oscillation of Second-Order Differential Equations with Neutral Arguments

The motivation for this paper is to create new criteria for oscillation of solutions of second-order nonlinear neutral differential equations. In more than one respect, our results improve several related ones in the literature. As proof of the effectiveness of the new criteria, we offer more than one practical example.

Is Marriage Incompatible with Political Liberalism?

This paper examines three arguments that claim marriage, as a political institution, is incompatible with political liberalism. These arguments are drawn from Elizabeth Brake 1 and Clare Chambers. 2 My purpose here is to determine which, if any, of the arguments show marriage to be incompatible with political liberalism. The “Neutrality Argument” claims that the political institution of marriage violates the political liberal principle of neutrality. I claim that no such violation occurs. The “Unjustified Discrimination Argument” alleges that marriage involves the state in unjustified discrimination. I suggest there are grounds for the differential treatment identified. The “Public Reason Argument” argues that marriage, as it is currently structured, violates the political liberal principle of public reason. I claim that its current structure can be justified by appeal to public reasons. I therefore conclude that none of these arguments successfully demonstrate that marriage is incompatible with political liberalism.

Germanium as a donor dopant in garnet electrolytes

Cubic Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) garnet electrolytes continue to be viewed as an enabler of all-solid-state lithium battery technologies, or as protective membranes for next-generation lithium battery systems. Supervalent dopants at the lithium sublattice are commonly used to stabilise the conductive cubic phase, through the creation of lithium vacancies. The use of germanium (Ge4+) as a higher valent dopant substituting for Li+ was studied here and shown to stabilise the cubic LLZO phase through substitution of x = 0.10 mol of Ge (at the tetrahedral 24d Li sites of the space group Ia-3d, based on the neutron powder diffraction result). This substitution preference follows that of Al3+ (having a similar ionic radius and reported to reside at 24d sites), but with a lower critical concentration for cubic phase stabilisation, in agreement with charge neutrality arguments to obtain the required Li content (ca. 6.4–6.6 per formula unit) for optimum conductivity. The x = 0.10 composition gave the highest bulk Li ion conductivity of 2.8 × 10−4 S cm−1 at 25 °C, on the order of reported values for Al-doped LLZO. Surface chemical analysis using time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry showed Ge homogeneously distributed within the grains as well as some Li-, O- and Ge- enrichment along the grain boundaries. Cyclic voltammetry of the cells containing Ge-doped LLZO showed a redox stability up to +5 V.

Rawls's Neutrality Argument and Civic Education

Rawls's Neutrality Argument and Civic Education

Which online reviews do consumers find most helpful? A multi-method investigation

While there is some evidence that review length, review score, and argument frame can impact consumers' perceptions regarding the helpfulness of online consumer reviews, studies have not yet identified the most appropriate levels of such factors in terms of maximizing perceived helpfulness of these reviews. Drawing on Negativity Bias and Cue-Summation theories, we propose a theoretical model that explains online reviews' helpfulness based on specific characteristics of these reviews (i.e., length, score, argument frame). The model is empirically validated using two datasets of online consumer reviews related to products and services from Amazon.com and Insureye.com respectively. We also employ ANOVA analyses to reveal the levels of each of these characteristics that result in maximizing perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews. Further, we employ an artificial neural network approach to predict the helpfulness of a given review based on its characteristics. Our findings reveal that the most helpful online consumer reviews are those that are associated with medium length, lower review scores, and negative or neutral argument frame. Our results also reveal that there is no major difference between the characteristics of the most helpful online consumer reviews related to products or services. Finally, our findings reveal that the most helpful factor in predicting the helpfulness of an online consumer review is the review length. Theoretical and practical contributions are outlined.

Neutrality and the Social Contract

Given the fact of moral disagreement, theories of state neutrality which rely on moral premises will have limited application, in that they will fail to motivate anyone who rejects the moral premises on which they are based. By contrast, contractarian theories can be consistent with moral scepticism, and can therefore avoid this limitation. In this paper, I construct a contractarian model which I claim is sceptically consistent and includes a principle of state neutrality as a necessary condition. The principle of neutrality which I derive incorporates two conceptions of neutrality (consequential neutrality and justificatory neutrality) which have usually been thought of as distinct and incompatible. I argue that contractarianism gives us a unified account of these conceptions. Ultimately, the conclusion that neutrality can be derived without violating the constraint established by moral scepticism turns out to rely on an assumption of equal precontractual bargaining power. I do not attempt to defend this assumption here. If the assumption cannot be defended in a sceptically consistent fashion, then the argument for neutrality given here is claimed to be morally minimal, rather than fully consistent with moral scepticism.

Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates.

In this article, we take issue with the claim by Sunstein and others that online discussion takes place in echo chambers, and suggest that the dynamics of online debates could be more aptly described by the logic of ‘trench warfare’, in which opinions are reinforced through contradiction as well as confirmation. We use a unique online survey and an experimental approach to investigate and test echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. The results show that people do indeed claim to discuss with those who hold opposite views from themselves. Furthermore, our survey experiments suggest that both confirming and contradicting arguments have similar effects on attitude reinforcement. Together, this indicates that both echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics – a situation where attitudes are reinforced through both confirmation and disconfirmation biases – characterize online debates. However, we also find that two-sided neutral arguments have weaker effects on reinforcement than one-sided confirming and contradicting arguments, suggesting that online debates could contribute to collective learning and qualification of arguments.

On the economics of forests and climate change: Deriving optimal policies

First-best optimal forest sector carbon policy is examined. Using a forest and energy sector model with a carbon cycle module we show that the renewability and carbon neutrality arguments do not warrant emission free status of wood use. As a general optimality principle, the release of carbon is penalized by a tax and carbon capture is subsidized. However, under the biomass stock change carbon accounting convention, the land owners pay for the roundwood emissions and, to avoid double counting, the use of roundwood is treated as emission free. Yet, the carbon accounting convention followed does not affect the equilibrium outcome. The bioenergy from harvest residues is not emission free either. Furthermore, we show that an optimal policy subsidizes the production of wood products for their carbon sequestration. Correspondingly, carbon removals by biomass growth are subsidized and the harvest residue generation taxed. Numerical solution of the model shows that, although the use of wood is not emission free, it is optimal to increase the use of wood, possibly also in the energy sector. Before the wood use can be increased, the forest biomass will be increased. This carbon sink decreases the net emissions until the forest resources reach a new equilibrium.

From Zero to Hero: How Zero-Rating Became a Debate about Human Rights

Zero-rating has become a perfect storm incorporating politics, profit, and technical complexity. The claim that everyone has a right to Internet connectivity is coming into conflict with the argument for net neutrality: will the provision of free data services via mobile phones worldwide privilege a small minority of content providers such as Facebook and Google, or will it provide valuable access to information and services for low-income people worldwide? This dichotomy, however, is based on a reductivist perspective that doesn't take into account the possible disadvantages of a reliance on mobile connectivity for a majority of the world's citizens. If we add geographical and economic context into the debate, it becomes apparent that zero-rating could benefit some, but could also impoverish and further disadvantage many. Who are the winners and losers from a global perspective, and what are their chances against the prevailing wisdom of Silicon Valley?

On the Economics of Forest Carbon: Renewable and Carbon Neutral But Not Emission Free

First-best optimal forest sector carbon policy is examined. Using a comprehensive forest sector model with a detailed carbon cycle section we show that the renewability and carbon neutrality arguments do not warrant emission free treatment of forest bioenergy. However, under the biomass stock change carbon accounting convention followed by UNFCCC and IPCC, the forest owners pay for the roundwood emissions and, to avoid double counting, the use of roundwood is treated as emission free. The bioenergy from harvest residues cannot be treated as emission free either. Their emission factors are determined through the decay time-scales specific to residue fractions and discount rate used in welfare assessment. In addition, we show that an optimal policy subsidizes the production of wood products sequestering carbon. The relative magnitude of the subsidy is based on the fraction of the carbon stored, the lifetime of the products and the discount rate. Correspondingly, the carbon removals by biomass growth are subsidized and the harvest residue generation taxed. Further, we show that the supply side policies are independent of final use of harvested timber. Numerical solution of the model shows that, although the use of wood is not emission free, it is optimal to increase the use of wood, possibly also in the energy sector. Before the wood use can be increased, the forest biomass has to be increased. This initial carbon sink speeds up the convergence to the lower steady-state atmospheric carbon stock.