Arts and Humanities Commons^™

Recovery And Reconstruction Of Principles Of Academic Debate As Dialectical Model: An Outline Of A Procedural Model Of Argumentative Rationality, Curtis Scott Jacobs

OSSA Conference Archive

Academic debate theory has developed over 125 years. According to debate theory, reasonable argumentation satisfies six obligations: (1) self-administration; (2) making prima facie/presumptively adequate moves; (3) clash; (4) meeting the burden of proof; (5) rejoinder/rebuttal; and (6) extension. These obligations define a kind of procedural rationality of argumentation distinct from the kinds of rationality elaborated by logical and rhetorical theories. Those obligations are grounded in the pragmatics of conversation and visible in debate practice.

Commentary On Petar Bodlović: "Presumptions, Burdens Of Proof, And Explanations", David Godden

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Evidence In Argumentation-Based Litigation (Alg): Comments On Xiong's And Du's Paper, Marko Novak

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Coding Empathy, Fabrizio Macagno, Chrysi Rapanta

OSSA Conference Archive

In rhetoric, empathy – the ability to put oneself inside the interlocutor’s position in an argument – has been considered as the bridge between the orator and the interlocutors. Despite its crucial importance, no studies have addressed the challenge of operationalizing this concept, translating it into proxies that can be used for determining how empathic a dialogue is. This paper intends to propose a coding scheme for capturing two dimensions of empathy in dialogue – otherness and relevance.

Connectives And Straw Men. Experimental Approach On French And English., Jennifer Schumann, Sandrine Zufferey

OSSA Conference Archive

In this paper, we present experiments designed to assess the role of causal connectives with an attributive meaning (e.g. since and puisque ) on the acceptability of straw man fallacies. Our results show that connectives play a role for the detection of straw man fallacies by increasing readers’ awareness to the speaker’s persuasive intent, thus creating a forewarning effect. We also uncover a crucial difference between causal connectives both within and across languages. Taken together, our experiments plead in favor of conducting fine-grained analyses of connectives in different languages in order to deepen our understanding of their role for argumentation.

What Makes Us Change Our Minds In Our Everyday Life? Working Through Evidence And Persuasion, Events And Experiences., Jens E. Kjeldsen

OSSA Conference Archive

We know almost nothing about the reasoning that makes people change their minds in everyday life. Which role do arguments play in contrast to personal relations and ethos? Are people persuaded to change, or does change rather follow personal experiences? This paper examines the epistemologies people use to rhetorically work through their opinions, when moving from one conviction to another. The paper is based on research interviews with people who have changed their minds.

The Problem Of Mission Creep: Argumentation Theory Meets Military History, Tone Kvernbekk, Ola Bøe-Hansen, Ole A. Heintz, Daniel H. Cohen

OSSA Conference Archive

At the outset ‘mission creep’ is a military phenomenon, denoting uncontrolled and unintended mission development. Even the best-laid plans may become obsolete if they run against the facts on the ground, and mission creep may result. Mission creep also plagues arguments, as when arguments end up in unrelated topics, larger targets, or clusters of topics. Our paper explores possible mutual benefits of applying the resources of argumentation theory and military theory to one another.

Does Taste Counts As Evidence In Argumentation?, Daniel Mejía

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper is intended to answer the question of whether taste represents some kind of evidence in argumentation. To do this, the text is divided into four parts: first, the relationship between the technique of reconstruction and the definitions of argumentation is exposed. Second, different borderline cases that limit the use of this technique are discussed. Third, a dialogue where the argument appeals to taste is presented as another borderline case. Fourth, the role of taste as evidence (ground) for the analyzed argument is explored.

Commentary On: Jiaming Li & Jidong Li’S “Wang Chong’S Thoughts On Argumentation”, Min Ghui Xiong

OSSA Conference Archive

although there are a lot of points worthy of discussion in Li and Li's article, one thing is certain, that is, they give an overview of Wang's argumentation theory, which falsifies Becker's assertion that there is no argumentation in ancient China. I hope that Li and Li will have more systematic and theoretical research results about Wang's argumentation theory soon.

Wang Chong's Thoughts On Argumentation, Jiaming Li, Jidong Li

OSSA Conference Archive

As an outstanding thinker in the Eastern Han Dynasty of China, Wang Chong wrote many books during his lifetime, but all of them were lost except Lunheng. The purport of Lunheng is to reveal and criticize all kinds of "Xuwang（an ancient Chinese word, with the similar meaning of falsehood, fallacy, etc.）" in the society at that time. In our opinion, the ideological support behind Lunheng is Wang Chong's thoughts on argumentation.

Commentary On Sharon Bailin And Mark Battersby’S “Is There A Role For Adversariality In Teaching Critical Thinking?”, Catherine Hundleby

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Understanding The Embrace Of Fallacy: A Multi-Modal Analysis, Michael A. Gilbert

OSSA Conference Archive

I want to suggest that we can attain a deeper understanding of fallacies if we 1) examine them in situ, and 2) apply a multi-modal analysis to them. That is to say that there is a need to examine the logical, emotional, visceral and kisceral aspects of fallacies in order to understand why an arguer uses a fallacy (Gilbert 1997). Toward this end I will examine the embrace of fallacies and the circumstances in which they are used. The first is the use of the ad vericundiam and post hoc ergo propter hoc in the context of vaccine hesitancy. The …

The Role Of Trust In Argumentation, Catarina Dutilh Novaes

OSSA Conference Archive

Abstract: Argumentation is important for sharing knowledge and information. Given that the receiver of an argument purportedly engages first and foremost with its content, one might expect trust to play a negligible epistemic role, as opposed to its crucial role in testimony. I argue on the contrary that trust plays a fundamental role in argumentative engagement. I present a realistic social epistemological account of argumentation inspired by social exchange theory. Here, argumentation is a form of epistemic exchange. I illustrate my argument with two real-life examples: vaccination hesitancy, and the undermining of the credibility of traditional sources of …

Commentary: Scientific Evidence - From A "Deferent" To A "Novice" Judge: Comments On Zoppellari's Paper, Marko Novak

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Persuading And Convincing, Adelino Cattani

OSSA Conference Archive

I’ll propose a distinction based on historical, theoretical, and linguistic considerations between:

- two different ways of inducing a change of mind, that is persuading and convincing.

- two different ways of proving, that is rhetorical argumentation and logical-experimental demonstration.

There is a tendency to keep a distance from persuasion in favor of conviction. In everyday language, the difference between the two terms appears clear, and it is a distinction developed theoretically by many authors from Plato and Kant to Perelman. In particular:

1. Persuasion is centered chiefly on the speaker: it enhances one’s will and ability to modify …

Epistemic Success And Skeptical Norms In Argument, Lucy Alsip Vollbrecht

OSSA Conference Archive

The Default Skeptical Stance (DSS) delineates dialectical partners behavior toward one another given the adversariality thesis. Phyllis Rooney holds that the DSS, as a bridge between the formal and pragmatic elements of adversariality, leads to epistemic dysfunction. This connection commits the Adversarialist to defending the DSS. My modest version of this defense will be to show that the dysfunction in Rooney’s going case, the Penaluna – Leiter exchange, is not attributable to argument’s skeptical norms.

Commentary On Serafis Et Al.’S “Finding The Multi- In The Mode”, Justin Eckstein

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Acquisition Of Knowledge Through Narrative In Argumentative Processes, Guillermo Sierra-Catalán

OSSA Conference Archive

The objective of this investigation is to study the role that the narrative speech act plays in relation to the acquisition of certain types of knowledge within the frame of argumentative processes. An inferential scheme that regulates the acquisition of knowledge is exposed, as well as an analysis of the reasons adduced. This is used to develop an evaluative method for the argumentative “goodness” of narrative texts. Finally, the particular case of literary narratives is analysed.

Imagine The Audience – On Audience Research In Rhetoric, Argumentation, And Christopher Tindale’S The Philosophy Of Argumentation And Audience Reception, Jens E. Kjeldsen

OSSA Conference Archive

Without audiences there would be no rhetorical argumentation. Without audiences there would be no rhetoric. Without audiences there would be no argumentation. The importance of audiences for rhetoric and argumentation cannot be overstated. Thus, considering the constitutive necessity of audiences in our fields, it is strange, if not down right worrying, that we spend so few pages on researching audiences. Fortunately, Professor Christopher Tindale has addressed this lacuna in many publications, and now he has done it in a book length work on the Philosophy of Argumentation and Audience Reception (Tindale 2015) The thrust of the argument in his book …

Mapping Objectivity And Bias In Relation To Argument, J. Anthony Blair

OSSA Conference Archive

The conference theme invites contrasts between objectivity and bias, since the two are commonly considered contraries. But there are a variety of meanings of the two and a corresponding variety of contraries. Thus there is a problem for any attempt to discuss bias and objectivity in relation to argument as a contrasting pair. Still, several senses of both terms relate to argumentation. I offer an inventory of them.

Commentary On 'Pursuing Objectivity: How Virtuous Can You Get?', William R. Minto

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.

Studying Rhetorical Audiences, Jens E. Kjeldsen

OSSA Conference Archive

In rhetoric and argumentation research studies of empirical audiences are rare. Most studies are speaker- or text focussed. However, new media and new forms of communication make it harder to distinguish between speaker and audience. The active involvement of users and audiences is more important than ever before. Therefore, this paper argues that rhetorical research should reconsider the understanding, conceptualization and examination of the rhetorical audience. From mostly understanding audiences as theoretical constructions that are examined textually and speculatively, we should give more attention to empirical explorations of actual audiences and users.

Commentary On Michael Yong-Set's Ludological Approach To Argumentation, Daniel H. Cohen

OSSA Conference Archive

Although Michael Yong-Set's proposal to approach argumentation theory from a ludological perspective is not yet sufficiently developed to warrant adopting it, there is enough to warrant exploring it further – which is all the reception it needs at this point.

Mark Twain, Argumentation Theorist, Chris Campolo

OSSA Conference Archive

Commentators have read Twain’s Is Shakespeare Dead? as the strained work of a man worried about his own literary legacy. But it is actually an essay about argumentation. Twain writes about the burden of argument, premise relevance, understanding and inference, and norms and practices of argumentation. I will argue that what is taken to be a thoroughgoing cynicism on Twain’s part is best understood as a thoughtful scepticism about the scope of reasoning.

Emotional Legal Arguments And A Broken Leg, Rubens Damasceno-Morais

OSSA Conference Archive

We intend to examine ways that emotions may be intertwined within argumentative legal discourses. From the transcript of a brief trial in a Court of Appeal in Brazil we have the opportunity to observe how the emotional and rational reasoning live together in a deliberation among magistrates. “The leg broken case” allow us to examine how judges define the value of compensation to be paid in cases of moral damage. We show that not only technical arguments are the compounds of one decision; subjectivity is also important in that legal context. We would yet confirm what jurists and …

Another Dimension To Deep Disagreements: Trust In Argumentation, Moira L. Kloster

OSSA Conference Archive

I will connect the literature on deep disagreements with the literature on trust to construct a two-dimensional picture of the limits of argument. Argumentation and trust are important to the functioning of society, but each sets different expectations for when arguments can and should be used to resolve disagreements. When trust is factored in, we see a more nuanced picture of which disagreements will remain too deep for objective argument. Affective and social aspects of argument are not independent of procedure and content.

Transsubjectivity, David Hitchcock

OSSA Conference Archive

I describe and evaluate Harald Wohlrapp’s framing of “reasonable argumentation” in The Concept of Argument as argumentation guided by the “principle of transsubjectivity ... that, beginning with my subjectivity, I put my actual ego up for consideration as well as heighten and transcend it by seeking to participate in a general human potential, which is only attainable by recognizing the subjectivity of the Other”, and thus as having a quasi-religious meaning.

Agnotology And Argumentation: A Rhetorical Taxonomy Of Not-Knowing, Blake D. Scott

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper attempts to integrate an agnotological taxonomy of “not-knowing” with argumentation theory. Given rhetoric’s emphasis on what arguers choose to make present for their audience, it is argued that the rhetorical approach is best suited to accommodate the proposed taxonomy. In doing so we can improve the capacities of both arguers and audiences to detect adverse elements such as prejudices, implicit biases, and ideologies, which can restrict an argument’s claim to objectivity.

Demonstrating Objectivity In Controversial Science Communication: A Case Study Of Gmo Scientist Kevin Folta, Jean Goodwin

OSSA Conference Archive

Scientists can find it difficult to be seen as objective within the chaos of a civic controversy. This paper gives a normative pragmatic account of the strategy one GMO scientist used to demonstrate his trustworthiness. Kevin Folta made his talk expensive by undertaking to answer all questions, and carried out this responsibility by acting as if every comment addressed to him—even the most hostile—was in fact a question in good faith. This presumption of audience good faith gave in turn his audience good reason to presume his good faith, and a situation of reciprocal distrust was transformed into one with …

Responding To Charges Of Climate Hype, Adam Auch

OSSA Conference Archive

I consider hype as it relates to discourse surrounding climate change. The presence of hype about a subject can make it difficult to judge what and whom one should believe. This may lead to concerns about climate change to be unfairly dismissed. For this reason, I argue that advocating for climate change mitigation efforts requires not only reiterating the soundness of the underlying science, but also understanding the social and psychological phenomena that produce the confusion.