Dialogues in Argumentation

Dialogues in Argumentation Windsor Studies in Argumentation Vol. 3 Edited by Ron Von Burg Wake Forest University 3 Windsor Studies in Argumentation Editors in Chief Leo Groarke (University of Windsor) Christopher Tindale (University of Windsor) Board of Editors Mark Battersby (Capilano University) Camille Cameron (University of Windsor) Emmanuelle Danblon (Université libre de Bruxelles) Ian Dove (University of Nevada Las Vegas) Bart Garssen (University of Amsterdam) Michael Gilbert (York University) David Godden (Old Dominion University) Jean Goodwin (Iowa State University) Hans Hansen (University of Windsor) Gabrijela Kišiček (University of Zagreb) Marcin Koszowy (University of Białystok) Marcin Lewiński (New University of Lisbon) Catherine H. Palczewski (University of Northern Iowa) Steven Patterson (Marygrove College) Chris Reed (University of Dundee) Andrea Rocci (University of Lugano) Paul van den Hoven (Tilburg University) Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez (Diego Portales University) Igor Ž. Žagar (University of Maribor & University of Primorska) Frank Zenker (Lund University) ISBN: Copyright Windsor Studies in Argumentation (WSIA) and individual authors E-editions of works in the WSIA series on argumentation are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-NoDerivs 4.0 license. Table of Contents Acknowledgements Introduction-Dialogues in Argumentation Ron Von Burg Wake Forest University Conversation Starters On Deep Disagreement David Zarefsky Northwestern University Studying Argumentation Behaviour Hans V. Hansen University of Windsor Analogies in Conversation Dale Hample University of Maryland Moral Normativity of Argument J. Anthony Blair University of Windsor When Foundations Fail: Argument without Institutions of Fact James F. Klumpp University of Maryland Meta-Reason and Political Transformation M. Lane Bruner Georgia State University Argumentation and the Cybersphere G. Thomas Goodnight University of Southern California Conversational Turns Dialectics and Polylogues: The Case of Multi-party Deliberations Marcin Lewiński ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy of Language (IFL-FCSH) Universidade Nova de Lisboa “It is True that Security and Schengen Go Hand in Hand”: Strategic Manoeuvring in the Multi-layered Activity Type of European Parliamentary Debates Dima Mohammed Universidade Nova de Lisboa The United States Supreme Court, Abortion Policy, and the Intersection of Deliberative and Forensic Rhetoric Ronald J. Placone Carnegie Mellon University Visual Argument, National Apologies, and Reconciliation Carol Winkler Georgia State University About the Authors Acknowledgements The important and enduring effort to broaden the dialogue of argumentation theory and improve argumentative practice requires both charity and dedication; the evidence of which can be found throughout this volume. The community of argumentation scholars, who cross many borders, both geographically and academically, shares a generosity of spirit that is both inviting and energizing. I have been a fortunate beneficiary of their munificence. An edited volume is reflective of a community working together to advance a conversation. As an editor, one relies upon insightful and constructive reviews. All the authors in this volume served graciously as reviewers of another author’s paper. Others without essays in this volume gladly answered my need for further reviewers. For that, I extend my deepest gratitude to Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez and Frank Zenker. As conversations ensued about what to do with the papers from the 2012 Wake Forest Argumentation Conference in Venice, it was Hans Hansen who recommended a new Wake Forest faculty member to edit a volume for the new Windsor Studies in Argumentation series. I will not soon forget such a kind gesture of trust and support. Likewise, Leo Groarke, Chris Tindale, and the rest of the staff at the Windsor Studies in Argumentation series have been exceptionally helpful in providing invaluable feedback and ushering this volume through the publication process. Finally, I would not have such an opportunity without the support of the directors of the Wake Forest Argumentation Conference: Frans van Eemeren, David Cratis Williams, and my Wake Forest colleagues Michael David Hazen and Alessandra Von Burg. I am particularly grateful to David Williams, whose experience and invaluable assistance helped me navigate the process of bringing an edited volume to completion. 1 Introduction-Dialogues in Argumentation Ron Von Burg Wake Forest University [email protected] The relationship between dialogue and argument enjoys a rich, intellectual history. The interactive nature of dialogue features in many approaches to the study of argument, from the dialectical to the rhetorical to the sociological. However, the virtues of argumentative dialogue in the academy are often liabilities beyond its wall. In the contemporary moment, many outside the academy treat colloquial understandings of an argumentative dialogue as a good conversation ruined. The common usage of “argument” implies confrontation and hostility, an indecorous turn that disrupts pleasant exchanges populated with personal opinions. When such assertions face scrutiny, many are all too willing to retreat to the dialogue-ending retort: “Well, that’s just my opinion.” As the circumference of argumentative dialogue widens to public spheres, we find that quarrelsome discourse does not carry the same liabilities as it does in interpersonal dialogues. The echo chambers of modern media establishments that satisfy the tendency for epistemic closure and opinion-affirmation are often the most conducive to confrontational and combative discourse. Political talk show hosts of all ideological stripes hurl clichéd invectives at the opposition, forgoing any intellectual charity or search for commonalities. Moreover, a cursory glance at contemporary American political discourse reveals spirited and contentious disagreements that mask a dearth of argumentation acumen. Public debates over climate change, abortion rights, foreign policy, and gun control, to name a few, are some of the most strident disagreements riddled with fallacious reasoning, poor evidence usage, and unsupported claims. Political debates in Europe and Canada, unfortunately, do not fare much better. For argumentation scholars, this is a troubling phenomenon. Argument should be a celebrated concept, a testament to the virtues of sound reasoning, credible evidence, and justifiable rationality. Argument, while inviting clash, need not be confrontational but a productive pursuit of resolving disagreement, guiding action, and advancing knowledge. In navigating the muddy waters between theory and practice, argumentation scholars who study argument as it happens and aspire to offer correctives when rationality and reason are lacking will find a bevy of opportunities for scholarly and pedagogical intervention. Previous collections of argumentation scholarship, such as van Eemeren and Houtlosser’s (2005) edited volume Argumentation in Practice, highlight the importance of studying argument praxis, encouraging theoretically informed criticism of actual argumentative practices. Such volumes, and the field of argumentation studies in general, benefit from enriching interdisciplinary conversations that bring into dialogue multiple methodologies and distinct cultural interests to lay a foundation for new opportunities to improve argument praxis and criticism. This collection reflects a similar spirit, asking tough questions of ourselves and of the argumentative practices we study, especially in the contemporary moment when public dialogue is marked by truculence and discord. This volume, which brings together selected essays from the 2006 11th Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation 2 Conference held at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida and the 2012 14th Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation Conference held at Casa Artom in Venice, Italy, emerges from a rich history of conferences that seek to meld theory and practice, advancing a dialogue about argumentation well beyond national as well as disciplinary borders. The Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation Conference began in 1982 as a biennial event to help promote argumentation scholarship among directors of intercollegiate debate.1 The first three iterations of the Conference were held on the Wake Forest University campus in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, before alternating between the main Wake Forest campus and the Wake Forest University Venice, Italy campus— Casa Artom—in 1988, with the exception of the 2006 Biennial Conference held at Florida Atlantic University. The Biennial Argumentation Conference boasts a rich history of producing exceptional argumentation scholarship, from edited volumes2 to special issues of flagship argumentation journals3 to landmark essays in notable rhetoric and argumentation journals.4 This volume seeks to be part of that storied tradition by including essays from numerous celebrated argumentation studies scholars who engage fundamental questions about the breakdown of argumentative dialogue and how argumentation studies can provide insight into stalled public dialogue. David Zarefsky, in his opening essay “On Deep Disagreement,” identifies the widening chasm between the vibrant and historically rich study of argumentation and its contemporary practice in various deliberative spaces. Zarefsky notes that deep disagreement—a “controversy all the way down in an infinite regress [where] there is no shared

Load more