2Argumentationand Discussion

Q

ESSENTIALS

A critical discussion is an ideal of argumentative discourse aimedat resolving a difference of opinion by determining whether thestandpoints at issue ought to be accepted or not. A critical dis-cussion proceeds through four stages: the confrontation, opening, argumen-tation, and concluding stages. In practice, argumentative discoursecorresponds only partly with this ideal model and it may also be the case thatonly one of the parties expresses its view, so that the discussion remains im-plicit. An analysis of argumentative discourse must examine to what extentthe discourse can be reconstructed as a critical discussion.

2.1 RESOLVING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION

A difference of opinion is said to be resolved as soon as one of the twoparties revise their original position. If the difference of opinion is anelementary one, resolution is reached when the doubting party aban-dons his or her doubts, or when the other party retreats from his orher standpoint:

23

At first I wasnt sure whether I agreed with you, but I have toadmit you are right.Now that Ive heard all of your reservations, Ive come tothink my standpoint isnt so strong after all.

The end of active disagreement does not necessarily mean thatthe difference of opinion has truly been resolved. It is important todistinguish between resolving a difference of opinion and merelysettling it. Settling a disagreement means that it is simply set aside.This can be achieved in an uncivilized manner by intimidating orforcing the other party into submission. A civilized, but arbitrary,way of settling a disagreement is to lay the matter before a thirdparty who serves as judge and decides who is right. Another civi-lized way of settling a disagreement is to decide the winner bydrawing lots. Still another way is to put the matter to a vote and letthe majority decide:

During the health care debate, the Italian Prime Minister gothis way by forcing the issue to a vote, which the socialistparty lost. Clearly, however, not all of the socialist membersof the Cabinet are convinced of the desirability of the newpolicy measures.

In such cases, the difference of opinion has not really been re-solved. True resolution is reached only if both parties come to holdthe same position on the grounds of rational argumentation. Eitherboth parties adopt the same standpoint (positive or negative) or elseboth parties begin to question the standpoint.

2.2 A MODEL OF A CRITICAL DISCUSSION

To be able to deal with a difference of opinion in a rational way, thereneeds to be an argumentative discussion. This is a discussion in whichargumentation is used to try to determine to what extent a givenstandpoint is defensible. The purpose of an argumentative discus-sion is different from that of an informative discussion, which servesprimarily to convey information.

In real-life discussions, informative and argumentative elementsare often combined. Once the participants realize that their view-points differ, it is usually not long before they decide to attempt tofind out which view is the most tenable, and this, in turn, requires athorough knowledge of each others viewpoints. When the discus-

24 CHAPTER 2

ARGUMENTATION AND DISCUSSION 25

sion is not simply aimed at informing someone about something, it isbest to view it as an argumentative discussion.

Ideally, an argumentative discussion is a critical discussion aimedat resolving a difference of opinion. A critical discussion takes placebetween a party who defends a certain (positive or negative) stand-point, the protagonist, and a party who challenges this standpoint, theantagonist. Only when an antagonist counters the standpoint of theprotagonist with an opposing standpoint is this antagonist also theprotagonist of a standpoint. During the discussion, protagonists tryto convince antagonists of the acceptability of their standpoints,while the antagonists keep raising doubts or objections.

A critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinionproceeds through four stages, which are distinguished analyticallyin the following model:

1. In the confrontation stage the parties establish that they have adifference of opinion. In a nonmixed difference of opinion, thissimply means that one partys standpoint is not immediatelyaccepted by the other party, but is met with doubt or criticism.In a mixed difference of opinion, the other party advances theopposite standpoint.

2. In the opening stage the parties decide to try to resolve the differ-ence of opinion. They assign the roles of protagonist and antag-onist (in a mixed difference, there are two protagonists and twoantagonists). They also agree on the rules for the discussionand on the starting points.

3. In the argumentation stage the protagonist defends his or herstandpoint against the sometimes persistent criticism of theantagonist by putting forward arguments to counter the antag-onists objections or to remove the antagonists doubts.

4. In the concluding stage the parties assess the extent to whichthe difference of opinion has been resolved and in whose fa-vor. If the protagonist withdraws the standpoint, the differ-ence of opinion is resolved in favor of the antagonist; if theantagonist abandons his or her doubts, it is resolved in favorof the protagonist.

2.3 THE IDEAL MODEL AND ARGUMENTATIVE PRACTICE

Of course an ideal model does not describe reality. And yet, real-lifeargumentative discussions do sometimes approach the model. In an

article in a Dutch sports magazine, the authors contribution to thediscussion comes very close to following the model:

The Light Athletic Association leadership recently met to discussthe future of athletics. This is undoubtedly a praiseworthy effort.Dick Loman gave an enthusiastic report of this meeting and invitedanyone not present to join in the discussion. I am answering his callby expressing my opinion in this article.Part of the discussion concerns whether or not to furthercentralize the training of athletes. And this is the point Iwould like to speak to.For years, centralized training has bothered me Notbecause of but primarily because And so, I repeat: do away with centralized training.

In the italicized introduction, the author announces her status as pro-tagonist. Apart from this announcement, there is no reference to theopening stage. The author proceeds with the confrontation by puttingforward the standpoint that centralized training should be done awaywith. The argumentation stage is complete. (To save space it has notbeen repeated here.) The concluding stage is also explicit, even thoughthe author, in giving the conclusion, of course speaks only for herself.

It is quite common for little time to be spent on the opening of a dis-cussion. Discussion rules and other starting points are often taken forgranted and do not require explicit mention. This is not entirely cor-rect, however. It is precisely the lack of proper procedure in a dis-cussionthe lack of explicit rulesthat causes many discussions torun into difficulty.

The conclusion of a discussion is more often explicit, though sel-dom as explicitly expressed as in the following newspaper column:

A discussion about the relationship between parliament andpublic opinion could be fascinating, but not with PollyToynbee. I hereby declare that I have won the discussion andwill now go on to more important matters.

Polly Toynbee, in her reply, seems to have no expectation that the dis-cussion can be concluded with agreement on both sides:

Let me be frank: if I have a debate with someone, I never havethe illusion that my opponent will say at the end: PollyToynbee, you are right; I have made a mistake; from now on Ishall defend your standpoint.

26 CHAPTER 2

This is taking things too far. And yet, it is highly desirable that bothparties should reach agreement on the outcome of the discussion.Fortunately, many discussions do end in agreement on the outcome,or at least come close to it. Note that even in the case of discussionsdecided by voting, it is desirable that both parties reach agreementon the outcome:

It was gratifying that the membership of the party, after thor-ough consideration, decided unanimously in favor of propo-sition 102.

Most argumentative discussions, then, depart considerably fromthe model. The parties often do not go through all four of the discus-sion stages or not in the same order. Sometimes one party declaresthat the difference of opinion has been decided in its favor beforethe argumentation stage has even been completed. Sometimes, inthe course of the discussion, the parties realize they have failed toclearly identify what exactly they disagree on, so that it becomesnecessary to go back to the confrontation stage. Elements of the dif-ferent stages may be missing that are indispensable for the resolu-tion of the difference of opinion. The discussion may also contain agreat many elements (e.g., expressions of courtesy, jokes, and anec-dotes) that, without directly contributing to the resolution, help tomake the discussion go more smoothly.

Such discrepancies between theory and practice do not diminishthe usefulness of the model. By definition, an ideal differs from reality.The idealized model has an important critical function: It can be a toolfor identifying where a real-life argumentative discussion goeswrong. It makes it possible to identify what necessary elements aremissing or inadequately represented. For example, comparison withthe model makes it possible to say that, in one instance, the discussionfails because the difference of opinion has not been clearly identified,whereas in another instance it fails because roles have not been prop-erly assigned or because discussion rules have not been agreed on.

The model of a critical discussion is more than a tool for evaluat-ing whether the discussion has proceeded correctly. It is also an in-strument for analyzing a discussion (whether simple or complex)in a constructive manner. In this regard it has a heuristic function:Elements that are only implicitly present in the discussion canmore easily be identified, and the various elements of the discus-sion can be analyzed in a way that clarifies their role in the resolu-tion process.

ARGUMENTATION AND DISCUSSION 27

2.4 ARGUMENTATION IN AN IMPLICIT CRITICAL DISCUSSION

Most people regard the argumentation stage as the real discussion.It does in fact largely determine the outcome. Taken together, the ar-guments used by the protagonist in the argumentation stage to makea case are what constitute a discursive text. In other words, a discur-sive text, or case, is the sum total of all argumentation brought for-ward to defend a standpoint.

In a nonmixed difference of opinion, there is always just one partywho presents a case, however simple or complex this argument maybe. The antagonist simply asks questions and does not adopt a stand-point. In a mixed difference of opinion, each party has a standpointthat requires defending; therefore, each party presents a case.

Paula: It seems to me its to my advantage that I have neverdone anything like this before.

Jack: Thats not an advantage if you ask me.Paula: Why not?Jack: You first explain why you think its an advantage, and

then Ill tell you why I think its not.Paula: Well, as far as Im concerned, its pretty simple: the fact

that I have no experience means that I approach it withno preconceived notions. And for a screen test thats im-portant.

Jack: Its not at all an advantage to do a screen test with no ex-perience, because you have no idea what to do to presentyourself in the most favorable light. And thats reallytricky.

During the latter part of this discussion, Paula and Jack each presenta case for their standpoint. Here their arguments are part of an ex-plicit discussion, but more often than not arguments are part of an im-plicit discussion. An implicit discussion is one in which only one of theparties participates.

Even if the other party does not explicitly participate, however,this partys point of view is still taken into account. This may, for in-stance, become apparent when the protagonist explicitly refers to thepotential objections of a real or imagined antagonist:

Theres no other country in the world where women are aswell integrated into the army as in Norwayand dont gobringing up the case of Israel, because in Israel women dont

28 CHAPTER 2

Edited by Foxit ReaderCopyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008For Evaluation Only.

fight in the front lines. Have you ever seen women soldiers inone of those intifadah photos?

A practical complication is that argumentation sometimes takesthe form of a monologue and it is hard to recognize any of the ele-ments of a discussion. Even so, a monologue defending a standpointshould be viewed as a one-way dialogue. Such monologues are socommon that people dont even realize that argumentative discoursealways presumes a discussion or dialogue situation, even though itmay be implicit. Argumentation always has the aim of convincingpotential critics, whether or not they are actually present.

If the discussion remains implicit, parties putting forward theircase as a rule need to do more than just present their argumentation.They need to incorporate the other stages of the discussion process intheir case as well, and perhaps point out potential doubts and knownobjections. At the outset they need to establish that a difference ofopinion exists or threatens to arise (confrontation stage). Next, theyhave to make it clear that they are prepared to resolve the differenceby following certain rules for argumentative discussions; they maybriefly mention these rules and any starting points (opening stage).Then of course they present their own argumentation, perhaps refer-ring to the views of an opposing party (argumentation stage). Finally,they need to assess to what extent the difference of opinion has beenresolved by their argumentation (concluding stage). This is more orless what happens in the following case:

A lot of people have been saying recently that penalties forcriminals should be stiffer. I dont agree with this and I willexplain why. First I will review all the arguments Ive heardin favor of stiffer penalties and show why they are unsound.[]I believe I have conclusively shown that stiffer penalties forcriminals dont make any sense. This is a matter on whichreasonable people need no longer disagree.

There are instances in which the antagonist at whom the case is di-rected is not specified; it may be entirely unclear who the potentialantagonist might be. But when argumentation is analyzed, we pro-ceed from the assumption that it is an attempt by the speaker to con-vince someone who does not yet agree with the speaker sstandpoint. After all, if everyone already agreed, there would be noreason to go to the trouble to argue the case.

ARGUMENTATION AND DISCUSSION 29

Edited by Foxit ReaderCopyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008For Evaluation Only.

30 CHAPTER 2

FURTHER READING

In theories of critical discussion, informal as well as formal models havebeen developed. The informal model which constitutes the basis for thisbook can be found in F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, SpeechActs in Argumentative Discussions, Dordrecht/Berlin: Foris/Walter deGruyter, 1984, and Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: APragma-Dialectical Perspective, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, 1992. Formal models of argumentative discussions aimed at re-solving a dispute are studied in dialogue logic. See, for instance, E. M.Barth and E. C. W. Krabbe, From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Studyof Logics and Argumentation, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982, and D. N.Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue, Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1995. In Disputation by design, Argu-mentation, 1998, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 183198, S. Jackson discusses the useof models of argumentative discussions for localizing problems in dis-cussions on the World Wide Web.