Argumentative Perspective Research Articles

Analysis Of Literature Review On Spiritual Concepts According To The Perspectives Of The Al-Quran, Hadith And Islamic Scholars

This paper aims to explain the concept of spirituality from an argumentative perspective from the al-Qur'an, hadith and Islamic scholars. The term spiritual refers to the intangible aspect of one's being, from Western epistemology, which causes their views to be contrary to Islam, resulting in misconceptions in the application of the concept of spirituality. Meanwhile, religion, according to the Islamic argument, grows in the spiritual dimension. From a Western perspective, however, it is the polar opposite. On the Qur'anic side, the meaning of spirit is used with different words in the al-Qur'an, the most common of which is the word al-qalb, which is mentioned in various verses. Furthermore, al-qalb has several meanings, including al-aql, al-roh, al-ra'y, al-fu'ad, al-sadr, al-nafs al-lubb. Similarly, taqwa, the feeling of absolute love for Allah SWT and the Messenger of Allah SWT, self-confidence, and patience, is mentioned in a spiritually related hadith. According to Islamic scholars, the spiritual dimension of a Muslim's life includes monotheism, worship, and morality.

The use of metaphor to explore prospective mathematics teachers’ projective identity

AbstractMetaphors have been widely used to investigate the perspectives of teachers and students in mathematics. In this report, an instrument was developed, the metaphor continuums, to provide a space for four prospective teachers to discuss their projective identities as teachers and mathematics teacher. Using an argumentation perspective on identity, the responses to the instrument were investigated to determine a tentative manifestation of the participants’ projective identity. The participants’ provided some evidence of their projective identities as teacher and mathematics teachers being aligned. One participant did not provide evidence of distinguishing between her identity as a mathematics teacher and a teacher. The vehicles, or subject of the metaphors, given to the participants provided varying ways for them to explore their ideas of teaching and learning mathematics. The metaphor continuums showed potential for mathematics teacher educators to receive initial information to help in determining targeted interventions for their students.

What is the task about? Exploring the issues discussed by preschool children in engineering activities at kindergarten

Problem solving tasks are one of the topics of investigation within the field of STEM and educational engineering involving children. However, young children have received much more little attention. Accordingly, this paper explores the issues discussed by preschool children during engineering activities. We focus on the issues participants discuss during three building problem solving proposed to preschool children at a kindergarten. The activities were audio-video recorded and the argumentative discussions were identified and transcribed. The argumentative analysis focused on different elements, such as the issuesoccurring in each argumentative episode, the standpoints, the arguments, and the argumentative structure. In particular, to explore the issues and their role in problem solving activities, three illustrative cases are presented. The findings show, from an argumentative perspective, a variety of issues explored by children in solving problems around building tasks. The task presented by the adult as a building activity represents something more for the participant children: for example, the children focus on the technical components to overcome possible obstacles, they refer to the collaboration with peers, to the possession of objects or to the utility of the working activities. As preschool children’s engineering work appears as a complex activity, the present study highlights the value of analyzing the issues that are discussed by preschool children during building activities.

Conative Meanings of Covid-19 Hate Speech on Social Media in the Perspective of Substantive Arguments

This study aims to describe the results of the analysis of the conative meanings of Covid-19 hate speech on social media. The data of this study were excerpts from Covid-19 hate speech text on social media in March-May 2020. The data were collected by referring to the note taking technique as the basic technique. Data analysis were performed using the content analysis method. The design analysis method used was the estimated content analysis design. This design utilized all the knowledge researchers have in analyzing data about the conative meaning of Covid-19 hate speech. The results showed that Covid-19's hate speech had the following conative meanings: (1) insulting, (2) criticizing, (3) railing, (4) provoking, (5) harrasing, (6) blasheming, (7) insinuating, and (8) defaming. The results of this study are useful for building critical awareness of the community in the face of hate speech that is constantly present through social media in the community.

Referencial processes on televisive politic debate

Este trabalho analisa como os processos referenciais atuam no gênero debate político televisivo tanto na perspectiva argumentativa quanto na textualidade. Nesse sentido, fez-se uma abordagem da referenciação, um fenômeno do discurso que estabelece a reconstrução do real por meio da linguagem. Em relação à base teórica, contou-se com as contribuições de Cajueiro (2013), Cavalcante, Custódio Filho e Brito (2014), Costa (2009), Custódio Filho (2011), Cavalcante, Rodrigues e Ciulla (2014), Ferreira (2010), Koch (2004 e 2011), Koch e Elias (2009), Marcuschi (2003 e 2010), entre outros. O estudo traz uma perspectiva qualitativa, evidenciando a relevância e a funcionalidade dos processos referenciais observados. Nas análises, observou-se que os processos referenciais evidenciados no debate atuaram na constituição da tessitura textual, no que se refere à manutenção do gênero e das temáticas abordadas. Na argumentação, por sua vez, esses processos permitiram a reconstrução de objetos de discurso, uma vez que cada debatedor a efetuava a partir de seus pontos de vista, procurando desqualificar o oponente e enaltecer-se como o melhor candidato ao pleito.

Las restricciones constitucionales de los derechos humanos en México a partir de la contradicción de tesis 293/11, análisis argumentativo y valoración ponderativa para la solución de principios normativos en conflicto

El estudio de las resoluciones judiciales es de gran importancia dentro de la época actual, es ahí donde se representan los razonamientos jurídicos que resuelven casos controvertidos, sobre todo aquellos de instancias superiores de impartición de justicia, uno de esos casos es la contradicción de tesis 293/11, que en México refiere a la restricción de los derechos humanos, criterio jurisprudencial que tratamos de analizar desde la óptica de la argumentación jurídica.

Trust-Repair Strategies in Crisis Rhetorical (Sub-)Arenas: An Argumentative Perspective

ABSTRACT This study extends the rhetorical arena approach to crisis communication with an argumentative perspective. A rhetorical activity in which reasons are communicated to justify and obtain acceptance for a claim, argumentation plays a crucial role in (re)legitimizing corporate trustworthiness following a crisis episode. Arguments supporting or rejecting trust claims do not only pervade the corporate crisis response message (e.g., an apology), but also the public reactions in the rhetorical arena, i.e., the multivocal conversational space that opens up in a crisis context. Therefore, rhetorical arena crisis communication takes the form of an argumentative polylogue in which corporate trustworthiness features as the main issue. We develop a method for the analysis of trust-related polylogues occurring in rhetorical (sub-)arenas. Unlike existing methods, like tone analysis of online comments, our approach enables to examine, more specifically, the reasons organizations and stakeholders present for or against trust. This, in turn, provides an enhanced method to assess the effectiveness of a crisis response strategy. In order to illustrate our approach, we elaborate a case study based on an apologetic article published by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and a sample of public reactions appearing on media articles and on subsequent online discussion websites.

Placing self-assessed health within the systems framework: a preliminary insight into social synergy and syntony

Abstract The issue of self-assessed health (SAH) has been discussed within the scope of multiple interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies, gathering the attention and interest of scholars from various fields of study. Emerged at the confluence of subjective and objective measurements, the construct has triggered controversies and debates on its relevance and reliability, yet it is employed in many analyses as a pertinent reference point for individuals’ perceptions regarding their health status or wellbeing. Starting from these considerations, the current study aims to move the discussion further, by placing SAH in a broader argumentative perspective, as a multivalent process dependent on a myriad of individual, social, environmental, digital, etc. factors apposite to complex social systems. Therefore, the specific contribution intended via this approach is the advancement of a preliminary outlook on SAH within the social systems framework with a special emphasis on synergy and syntony. Against the backdrop of a conceptual undertaking, several factors are brought forward – i.e., environmental factors such as housing, neighborhood, residence and social (interactional) factors such as digital exposure, face-to-face communication, and social trust – hewing the path for future in-depth investigations on the topic.

PROCESSO COMUNICATIVO EM UM CURSO DE FORMAÇÃO DE PROFESSORES: UMA ANÁLISE BASEADA NOS PRINCÍPIOS ARGUMENTATIVOS DE PERELMAN E OLBRECHTS-TYTECA

Embora muitos estudos sejam realizados sobre a argumentação em Educação em Ciências, ainda existem vários aspectos a serem explorados. Esta pesquisa objetiva analisar, com base nos princípios argumentativos de Perelman e Olbrechts-Tyteca (1996), os argumentos docentes elaborados a partir de uma Sequência de Ensino Investigativo durante o Curso “FormAÇÃO de Professores na Perspectiva do Ensino Investigativo”, realizado na região Centro-Oeste paulista para 24 professores. Uma das questões a considerar no presente artigo é: como os qualificadores presentes na argumentação do professor formador e dos cursistas, por ocasião da resolução de problemas experimentais investigativos, permitem interlocuções na construção de processos comunicativos e categorias argumentativas? A metodologia de abordagem qualitativa, concebe técnicas argumentativas no processo comunicativo professor-alunos, apresentando-se como opção eficiente que visa potencializar um tratado argumentativo no ensino investigativo contextualizado na ação docente, realizado em ambiente não formal de ensino. A efetivação dessa análise intenciona discutir a importância do trabalho docente na perspectiva argumentativa, apresentando a complexa dinâmica que envolve processos de argumentação e que tem motivado o desenvolvimento de pesquisas, e suas expectativas na condução comunicativa no contexto educativo.

A rhetorical perspective on conspiracies

AbstractIn this paper, we analyze the persuasive effects of conspiracy theories from a rhetorical and argumentative perspective. In particular, we scrutinize a case-study – the story of the “Stamina cure” in Italy –, interpreting it as a particular instance of conspiracy theory. First, we explain what conspiracy theories are, and why they are relevant within the contemporary health debate. Second, we situate our analysis in relation to other theoretical accounts, explaining why a discursive approach may be required to study conspiracies. Third, we investigate our case-study through the lenses of the three “entechnic” proofs of rhetoric:logos, ethos, andpathos. We conclude that a rhetorical approach can shed significant light on how conspiracies achieve their persuasive effect and it provides a first step toward the elaboration of a more comprehensive model to better address the practical and political implications of conspiracy argumentations.

Rhetorical Citizenship and the Science of Science Communication

Public policy decisions often require rhetorically-engaged citizens to have some understanding of the science and technology involved. On many current issues (GMO crops, vaccinations, climate change) sectors of the public hold views differing from those of most scientists, and they often do not support proposals based on the scientists’ views. The overall cultural authority of science has also been challenged in the last decade by several negative trends in the sciences themselves, including widely-reported cases of fraud and failures in replication. With the support of professional science organizations, science communication specialists have stepped in aggressively to address science’s communication problems scientifically. This paper will examine the assumptions behind their advice on scientific information, their recommended strategies of framing, narration, and projecting trustworthiness, and their characterizations of audiences and the nature of science itself. From the perspective of rhetorical argumentation, the science communication literature does not promote addressing audiences as citizens capable of rational argumentation. But the science of science communication is likely to remain the dominant approach to public science with the professional science community.

Contribuciones de la perspectiva pragmadialéctica de la argumentación en la orientación del actuar razonable del legislador

El presente artículo explora la manera en que la perspectiva pragmadialéctica de la argumentación, a través de su código de conducta para discutidores razonables, coadyuva a orientar el actuar razonable del legislador, al exhortarlo a considerar la relevancia la libertad discursiva, así como la debida argumentación en la labor legislativa.
 Se estima que la razonabilidad del legislador es significativa para favorecer la confianza de la población en los integrantes del órgano legislativo, así como contar con leyes debidamente sustentadas por un aparato argumentativo, acorde a las exigencias del Estado de Derecho.

Retorische vragen van de rechter als wrakingsgrond

Abstract The judge’s rhetorical questions as ground of objection: an argumentation-analytical modelA complaint about the lack of impartiality of a judge may be filed on the grounds of the judge’s verbal behaviour. Such a complaint may result in the disqualification of the judge. In this paper, criticism on the verbal behaviour of the judge will be discussed from an argumentative perspective. From this perspective, the disqualification procedure may be considered a sub-discussion that relates to the initial legal dispute. I will examine what role complaints about the verbal behaviour of the judge can play in the argumentation of a party who seeks the judge’s disqualification. Therefore, I will analyse the structuring of the argumentation underlying disqualification requests that are based on complaints about the verbal behaviour of the judge. After that I will concentrate on complaints that concern the judge’s use of rhetorical questions. How these complaints about rhetorical questions may be evaluated will be examined and illustrated by an argumentative analysis of a decision by a disqualification panel.

The Location Method of Logistics Facilities Based on Efficiency and Fairness Preferences

In location problems for logistics sector such as emergency logistics system, the fairness is an important goal for facility design. This paper considers an extension to the p-median model by changing the weights of individuals based on their utilities. Also, we define and formulate performance metrics of efficiency and fairness in facility location. A method is proposed for decision makers selecting their efficiency-fairness preference from the perspective of quantitative arguments. The method was tested on a real world data set from the distribution system at Shanghai provided by Alibaba data center.

Through thick and thin: the romance of the species in the anthropocene

The emerging field of animal studies has a curious relationship with environmentalism. Instead of fitting comfortably in the latter’s capacious tent, animal studies has chafed at environmentalists’ commitment to holistic communitarianism best represented by Aldo Leopold’s “land ethic.” The land ethic approaches the biotic community as a pyramidal ecological system that turns on the relations between producers and consumers and between predators and prey rather than as an egalitarian moral community. Animal rights activists have thus repeatedly clashed with conservationists in an internecine fight poignantly dramatized in T.C. Boyle’s novel When the Killing’s Done (2011). In this paper, I argue that environmental justice cannot be secured solely from the third-person perspective of the deontological argument underlying animal rights or the utilitarian argument often used to justify the land ethic. Instead, we might draw on the pragmatist traditions East and West and view justice as a larger loyalty achieved as much by the moral imagination of the particular from the first- and second-person perspectives as by rational deliberation on the universal. Using a French novel (The Roots of Heaven, 1958), a Chinese novel (The Disappearance of Lao Hai, 2001), and a Chinese film (Monster Hunt, 2015) as my examples, I demonstrate how literature’s thick narratives can engender an ethics of care by bringing particular instances of non-human distress into aesthetic, affective, and moral proximity with us.

Slučaj Ahmea - primer tumačenja međunarodnih ugovora, sukoba međunarodnih sudova i fragmentacije međunarodnog prava

In this article the author examines decisions rendered by the UNCITRAL arbitral tribunal in an investment case Achmea v. Slovakia and judgment of the European Court of Justice regarding the compatibility of the investor-State dispute settlement provision in an intra-EUBIT with EU law relating the Achmea arbitral award on the merits. Given that the ECJ found incompatibility between the two such decision might have wide-ranging consequences. Here the author assesses arguments in different decisions from the perspective of fragmentation of international law, more precisely from the perspective of concepts and arguments developed within the International Law Commission Report on Fragmentation of International Law. While the fragmentation issue was discussed at the early stages of arbitral proceedings it was later abandoned and remained unmentioned by the ECJ. The cause of different takes on the relationship between dispute settlement provisions in intra-EUBIT and EU law could well be described not as a normative but rather as a conflict between different forums. Jurisdictional conflict thus gave rise to the problem of fragmentation in its strict sense - inability of a state to perform two treaty obligations simultaneously.

Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation?

AbstractThis paper sets out to analyse a case study of adult-children interaction in an educational context from a perspective of argumentation. We select a case in which 3 argumentative discussions are opened and we analyse them with the aim of understanding whether they are fully developed from a point of view of argumentation; or whether they are cut short and why. Our focus is not on the children’s individual productions but on the process of interaction. We assume the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation and the AMT as a theoretical framework. Our findings show that none of the discussions opened gets to a concluding stage, either because the teacher shifts the discussion on a different issue, or because the opening stage is not clear, or because the argumentation stage is not adequately developed. These findings contribute to conceptual clarification about how to interpret the role of a teacher.

Argumentative patterns in the European Union’s directives

AbstractThis paper provides an account of the arguments advanced by the European Union (EU) legislator in the preamble of directives adopted for harmonization in the internal market, and assesses them as to their potential at convincing the Member States to implement the directive at issue. We show what directives should argue for and how they do so in practice, by focussing in particular on Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Furthermore, this contribution moves beyond a purely academic discussion by linking the theoretical-normative framework advanced to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s approach to assessing the preambles of EU directives in the context of the ‘check’ on the duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty for the of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Our analysis unveils a legislative practice in which the obligation to give reasons is not discharged adequately from an argumentative perspective, and which remains generally unsanctioned due to the rather light and flexible test used by CJEU under Article 296 TFEU.

LES HASHTAGS MILITANTS, DES MOTS-ARGUMENTS

This article focuses on two activist hashtags, #Gender and #TheorieDuGenre , as used by the Twitter account “Veilleur sur l’actu”. It suggests considering this type of hashtags as a form of argument-words, that is, to include an argumentative perspective to the study of hashtags. Drawing from a precise case study, the author shows that the concepts of articulation (adapted from PECHEUX, 1975) and discursive-argumentative lineage (adapted from PAVEAU, 2006) can be used in a complementary way in order to understand the pragmatics of militant hashtags.

Rational versus Intuitive Outcomes of Reasoning with Preferences: Argumentation Perspective

Reasoning with preference information is a common human activity. As modelling human reasoning is one of the main objectives of AI, reasoning with preferences is an important topic in various fields of AI, such as Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR). Argumentation is one particular branch of KR that concerns, among other tasks, modelling common-sense reasoning with preferences. A key issue there, is the lack of consensus on how to deal with preferences. Witnessing this is a multitude of proposals on how to formalise reasoning with preferences in argumentative terms. As a commonality, however, formalisms of argumentation with preferences tend to fulfil various criteria of `"rational" reasoning, notwithstanding the fact that human reasoning is often not `"rational", yet seemingly `"intuitive". In this paper, we study how several formalisms of argumentation with preferences model human intuition behind a particular common-sense reasoning problem. More specifically, we present a common-sense scenario of reasoning with rules and preferences, complemented with a survey of decisions made by human respondents that indicates an "intuitive" solution, and analyse how this problem is tackled in argumentation. We conclude that most approaches to argumentation with preferences afford a ``"rational" solution to the problem, and discuss one recent formalism that yields the "intuitive" solution instead. We argue that our results call for advancements in the area of argumentation with preferences in particular, as well as for further studies of reasoning with preferences in AI at large.