Arts and Humanities Commons^™

Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity, Jianfeng Wang

OSSA Conference Archive

Taking issue with the current scholarship over the notion of a “rhetorical borderland,” we approach it as a disputable space in cross-cultural argumentation where arguers run into encounters with a composite audience. By drawing upon a few different theoretical resources, we propose a three-dimensional agenda for a new understanding of “rhetorical borderland”: as a discursive construct in the mental horizon; as a conceptual notion with essential uncertainties; and as a disputable space in cross-cultural argumentation.

The End Of Argument, Leo Groarke

OSSA Conference Archive

We tend to see argument as a way to resolve (and in this way end) the disagreements that give rise to it. But there are many real-life situations in which acts of arguing do not resolve disagreement, but instead produce an indefinite (and sometimes unending) series of arguments for and against whatever positions they support. I explore this “prolong” problem and the deep issues it raises for theories of argument.

Deep Disagreements And Some Resolution Strategies That Simply Won't Do, Jason E. Schultchen

OSSA Conference Archive

A deep disagreement is the result of clashing systems of underlying principles. Debate surrounding the possibility of the resolution of deep disagreements is ongoing. I elucidate the notion of deep disagreements by assuming their resolution is not precluded. I consider five disagreement resolution strategies offered by Steven Hales. Though I conclude that these strategies are not viable for resolving a deep disagreement, my examination allows me to identify certain key marks of an adequate solution.

Commentary On Deep Disagreement And Patience As An Argumentative Virtue, Tracy A. Bowell

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Deep Disagreement And Patience As An Argumentative Virtue, Kathryn Phillips

OSSA Conference Archive

A popular approach to analyzing the concept of evidence is to identify a unique set of normative criteria that delineate the concept. However, disagreements about evidence seem deep, and using this approach raises concerns about the imposition of dominant norms. Such an imposition excludes important sources of knowledge and leads to argumentative vices such as unwillingness to engage.

Virtue argumentation, like its predecessors from ethics and epistemology, focuses on practical applicability through the cultivation of habits and character rather than the articulation of universal principles or consistent theories. While Andrew Aberdein and others have been working to develop taxonomies of …

Deep Disagreement As Intellectual Colonialism, David Hitchcock

OSSA Conference Archive

Robert Fogelin has introduced the concept of a deep disagreement as one that makes rational argumentation impossible. People who think of themselves as enlightened may use this concept to dismiss the positions and arguments of those who seem to them misguided. I argue that there is always a basis for a rational discussion between people who disagree. If there are no external impediments to argumentative discussion, it is a form of intellectual colonialism to abandon argument for non-rational persuasion on the basis of a diagnosis of deep disagreement.