Digital Commons Network^™

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.

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.

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.

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

On The Objectivity Of Norms Of Argumentation, Michael Hoppmann

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper addresses the relationship between norms of reasoning and norms of politeness: To what extend can one be polite and reasonable at the same time? For this purpose, a normative system of reasoning (i.e. the model of the pragma-dialectical critical discussion) is contrasted with a normative system of politeness (Leech’s Politeness Maxims). If and when they are in conflict: How can the communicator solve this tension?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where Is The Reasonable? Objectivity And Bias Of Practical Argument, Marcin Lewinski

OSSA Conference Archive

The paper offers a theoretical investigation regarding the sources of normativity in practical argument from the following perspective: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I will address this problem by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties. I will argue that given the structure proposed, biased advocacy upholds reasonableness whenever the argumentative activity is adequately designed.

Integrating Natural Language Processing And Pragmatic Argumentation Theories For Argumentation Support, Mark Aaknus, Smaranda Muresan, Nina Wacholder

OSSA Conference Archive

Natural language processing (NLP) research and design that aims to model and detect opposition in text for the purpose of opinion classification, sentiment analysis, and meeting tracking, generally excludes the interactional, pragmatic aspects of online text. We propose that a promising direction for NLP is to incorporate the insights of pragmatic, dialectical theories of argumentation to more fully exploit the potential of NLP to offer sound, robust systems for various kinds of argumentation support.

Identifying Argumentative Acts Within The Classroom Amongst Engineering Students, Juan Fernando Barros-Martinez

OSSA Conference Archive

Students’ arguments surrounding a scientific topic are analyzed. This analysis comes from research developed in the classroom where dialogic interaction was promoted. The purpose of this study has not only been to identify argumentative elements used by students during the sessions but principally to the process of discussion. Three different ways have been proposed for this analysis: speech acts, acts of argumentative process and acts of learning process, with the intention of establishing relationships between them.

Some Practical Values Of Argumentation, Laura M. Benacquista

OSSA Conference Archive

In this paper, I identify two sets of practical values of argumentation from a standpoint that places a premium on maximal participatory democracy. The first set includes pedagogical values for both teachers and learners. The second set of values are transformative and include: facilitating openness as both tolerance and opportunity; facilitating understanding of one’s own positions, other’s positions, and the conceptual frameworks underlying them; and, finally, fostering motivation by encouraging action.

The Practice Of Arguing And The Arguments: Examples From Mathematics, Begoῆa Carrascal

OSSA Conference Archive

In argumentation studies, almost all theoretical proposals are applied, in general, to the analysis and evaluation of written argumentative texts. I will consider mathematics to illustrate some differences between argumentative practice and the products of it, to emphasize the need to address the different types of argumentative discourse and argumentative situation. Argumentative practice should be encouraged when teaching technical subjects to convey a better understanding and to improve thought and creativity.

Does Happiness Increase The Objectivity Of Arguers?, Moira Howes

OSSA Conference Archive

At first glance, happiness and objectivity seem to have little in common. I claim, however, that subjective and eudaimonic happiness promotes arguer objectivity. To support my claim, I focus on connections between happiness, social intelligence, and intellectual virtue. After addressing objections concerning unhappy objective and happy unobjective arguers, I conclude that communities should value happiness in argumentative contexts and use happiness as an indicator of their capacity for objective argumentation.

The Virtue Of Restraint: Rebalancing Power In Arguments, Moira Kloster

OSSA Conference Archive

Is argument a game everyone should be able to play? If it is, current argument practices do not yet level the playing field enough for a fair game. We may build in subtle imbalances that work against people who cannot easily adapt to the most common patterns of argumentative interaction. We need better ways to build trust, to create safety, and adapt goals in order to bring everyone into the game.

Polylogical Fallacies: Are There Any?, Marcin Lewiński

OSSA Conference Archive

Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.

Argumentation, Decision And Rationality, Fabio Paglieri

OSSA Conference Archive

From a decision theoretic perspective, arguments stem from decisions made by arguers. Despite some promising results, this approach remains underdeveloped in argumentation theories, mostly because it is assumed to be merely descriptive. This assumption is mistaken: considering arguments as the product of decisions brings into play various normative models of rational choice. The challenge is rather to reconcile strategic rationality with other normative constraints relevant for argumentation, such as inferential validity and dialectical appropriateness.

Emerging Truth And The Defeat Of Scientific Racism, Mark Weinstein

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper looks at the attack on scientific racism in the 20th century by a group of social and biological scientists. I will utilize the apparatus of my model of emerging truth to show how even in complex socially conditioned argumentation the ultimate virtue is seeking the truth through increasingly powerful logical connections and deeply embedded warrants.

Confucian Philosophical Argumentation Skills, Minghui Xiong

OSSA Conference Archive

Becker argued Confucianism lacked of argumentation, dialogue and debate. However, Becker is wrong. First, the purpose of philosophical argumentation is to justify an arguer’s philosophical standpoints. Second, both Confucius’ Analects and Mencius’ Mencius were written in forms of dialogues. Third, the content of each book is the recorded utterance and the purpose of dialogue is to persuade its audience. Finally, after Confucius, Confucians’ works have either argued for those unjustified standpoints or re-argued about some justified viewpoints in the Analects.