2004
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

Discussants in a public controversy are also players in a social arena. Under what circumstances can means of exerting pressure promote reasonable outcomes, and when are they rather hindrances to their achievement? We discuss the use of persuasion dialogues and negotiation dialogues by those who aim at a reasonable outcome. We show how in a public controversy both types of dialogue can be intertwined. Then, we examine in what ways participants in a public controversy can exert pressure on others. Finally, we discuss whether these means of pressure hinder the achievement of a reasonable outcome, both from the viewpoint of the pursuit of a resolution as well as from that of the pursuit of a compromise. We conclude that exerting pressure need not degenerate into committing a fallacy of either the type or the type .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.011.ALBE
2019-04-01
2021-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/41/1/11_TVT2019.1_ALBE.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.011.ALBE&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Amgoud, L., & Prade, H.(2006). Formal handling of threats and rewards in a negotiation dialogue. In S.Parsons, N.Maudet, P.Moraitis, & I.Rahwan (Eds.), Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 26, 2005: Revised selected and invited papers (pp. 88-103). Berlijn: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Du Pré, R. (2016, 26 oktober). ‘Nederland moet voortouw nemen bij klimaatdoelen.’ Volkskrant (rubriek Ten Eerste), p. 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. D66
    D66(2016). D66 Verkiezingsprogramma 2017-2021. Geraadpleegd op 2 januari 2018, https://d66.nl/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/12/Definitieve-VKP.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, F.H. van, (2016). Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation30, 1-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(2000). Kritische discussie. Meppel: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ihnen Jory, C.(2016). Negotiation and deliberation: Grasping the difference. Argumentation30, 145-165.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jacobs, S.(2009). Nonfallacious rhetorical design in argumentation. In Frans H.van Eemeren and BartGarssen (Eds.), Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues (pp. 55-78). Houten: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Laar, J.A van., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (2016a). Eerlijke en oneerlijke strategieën in maatschappelijke discussies. In D.Van De Mierop, L.Buysse, R.Coesemans, & P.Gillaerts (Red.), De macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen (pp. 131-143), Leuven: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Laar, J.A. van, & Krabbe, E.C.W. (2016b). Fair and unfair strategies in public controversies. Journal of Argumentation in Context5(3), 316-348.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Laar, J.A. van, & Krabbe, E.C.W. (2016c). Splitting a difference of opinion. In P.Bondy, & L.Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2016. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Laar, J.A. van, & Krabbe, E.C.W.(2018). The role of argument in negotiation. Argumentation, 32(4), 549-567.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Nieuwsdienst (2011, 13 mei). Staatssecretaris Bleker ontkent druk op natuurbeschermer. Algemeen Dagblad, p. 4
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metcalfe, D.(2002). Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Walton, D.N.(1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Walton, D.N.(2000). Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Walton, D.N.(2014). A dialectical analysis of the Ad Baculum Fallacy. Informal Logic, 34, 276-310.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Walton, D.N, & Krabbe, E.C.W.(1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Wij Stoppen Kool(2015). Wij zijn niet te stoppen, klimaatverandering wel! Geraadpleegd op 3 januari 2018, www.wijstoppensteenkool.nl/?p = 7628
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Woods, J.(2004). The Death of Argument: Fallacies in Agent Based Reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.011.ALBE
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error