Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments

Mohammed, Dima

doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This position paper is mainly concerned with the goals and functions of the exchange of arguments and criticisms, i.e., with the practice in which public argumentation figures prominently (Mohammed, 2016). (This entails downplaying goals and functions applying to individual agents' acts of arguing such as persuading others, or gaining support for one's policy preferences, for a survey and discussion of which see Walton and Krabbe, 1995;Gilbert, 1997;Patterson, 2011).…”

Section: Argumentation Theory and Public Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goals and functions of public argumentation

Zenker¹,

Laar²,

Abreu³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This position paper of Working Group 2 of the European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy Analysis (COST Action CA17132; https://publicpolicyargument.eu) reviews goals and functions of public argumentation. Drawing on a variety of disciplines, the paper introduces basic distinctions and charts out options. It is meant to guide reflection on the conceptual basis for the Action’s subsequent research regarding the analysis, evaluation, and design of public argumentation.

show abstract

Section: Argumentation Theory and Public Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goals and functions of public argumentation

Zenker¹,

Laar²,

Abreu³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trump not only gains the assent of his audience for policies he is advocating now, he also enhances the probability that they will assent to policies that appear to mitigate risks from immigrants later on. This means that he uses the fable for a kind of multi-purposive argumentation, broadly understood as Dima Mohammed uses the term: He makes an argumentative move that will influence several discussions touching on topics around immigration at once-though the exact topics of some of these discussions might not yet even be known to either Trump or his audience (Mohammed 2015(Mohammed , 2016.…”

Section: Donald Trump Gives a Dramatic Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trump, Snakes and the Power of Fables

Stevens

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At a recent rally, Donald Trump resumed a habit he had developed during his election-rallies and read out a song telling the Aesopian fable of The Farmer and the Snake. In this paper, I assume that Trump treats the fable as an argumentative device to support his stance on immigration. This gives me the opportunity to examine the effect fables have as argumentative devices. Fables are slimmed down, semi-abstract narratives, well suited for directing the audience's attention. However, this also makes it easy to use them to manipulate an audience into oversimplifying contexts and dehumanizing human beings. Les fables sont des récits réduits et semi-abstraits bien adaptés pour diriger l'attention du public. Cependant, cela facilite également leur utilisation pour manipuler un auditoire à simplifier à l'excès des situations complexes et à déshumaniser des êtres humains.

show abstract

“…It is also hard to speak here of two separate issues or sub-discussions that can be reconstructed from the broader debate. Breaking up a multi-party discussion that connects multiple issues is a methodologically difficult, if not unfeasible, task in situations like this (see Lewiński and Aakhus, 2014;Mohammed, 2016). Arguers involved with multiple possible opponents in a network of related issues and disagreements design their discourse accordingly, and this makes a simple dyadic reconstruction inadequate.…”

Section: Gazprommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two factors are crucial here. First, the argumentative goals (see Mohammed, 2016) of the company remain somewhat obscure. What exactly is the chief message or communicative function of these two short texts?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues

Lewiński

2016

Discourse & Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I scrutinise a crucial tension in understanding the debate over shale gas production in Europe. On the one hand, analyses predominantly grasp the debate in terms of pro-and-con dialectics, as if the pro-shale gas camp faced the anti-shale gas camp in a dyadic clash of opposing voices. On the other hand, it is commonly recognised that this debate is driven by multi-party and multi-position argumentative dynamics. In this broader context, I focus on one pivotal contribution to the debate – Gazprom’s press release from October 2013 outlining Russia’s energy giant’s strategy of dealing with unconventional gas production. I employ concepts and methods of argumentative discourse analysis to contend that an arguer to a multi-party debate – argumentative polylogue – faces a number of constraints and opportunities that cannot be adequately grasped in terms of dyadic pro-and-con dialectics. The analysis reveals how Gazprom needs to simultaneously design its discourse to address a number of other parties who might also disagree among themselves: from Greenpeace to European Union governments to shale gas companies. I show why and how a stakeholder analysis used in organisational communication might lead to a better understanding of this form of multi-party public argumentation.

show abstract

Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments

Cited by 27 publications

References 16 publications

Goals and functions of public argumentation

Goals and functions of public argumentation

Trump, Snakes and the Power of Fables

Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About