4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARGUMENTATION, RHETORIC, DEBATE, AND THE PEDAGOGY OF EMPOWERMENT 4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARGUMENTATION, RHETORIC, DEBATE AND THE PEDAGOGY OF EMPOWERMENT Ed. Abdel Latif Sellami, ICARD 2013 Conference Statement of review All papers reproduced in these proceedings have been independently double-blind peer reviewed by at least two qualified reviewers. All papers published in these proceedings were presented at the 4th International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate, and the Pedagogy of Empowerment, held in Doha, Qatar, 11-13 January 2013. Disclaimer The opinions and information contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of QatarDebate Center. While all due care was taken in the compilation of these proceedings, QatarDebate Center does not warrant that the information is free from errors or omission, or accept any liability in relation to the quality, accuracy, and currency of the information. Copyright Copyright © 2013 QatarDebate Center. All Rights Reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism, or review, This publication may not be reproduced, copied, republished, stored, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of QatarDebate Center. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to QatarDebate Center. Format for citing papers Author surname, initial(s). (2013). Title of paper. In Sellami, A.L. (Ed.), Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and Pedagogy: Proceedings of the 2013 4th International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate, and Pedagogy, (pp. xx–xx). Doha, January 11–13, 2013. ISBN 978-99921-95-34-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 5 Debate and fallacies in movies 9 Because We Once Lived There: Maasai culture as an argumentative resource in the Serengeti 25 “See men shredded, then say you don’t back war”: ‘Rhetorical Maneuvering’ in Opinion Press Argumentation 37 Assessing the role of legal rhetoric in Russia: the pseudo-Western language of Russian law 59 How do young Arab Emiratis argue? A pilot study 67 Critical thinking for an emergent, relevant, and productive ‘knowledge-building’ approach to research inquiry and academic writing 79 Hit two birds with one stone: Strategic maneuvering in the post-Mubarak era 95 Burning their bridges: The ethics of disparaging consistent arguments in “British Parliamentary”-style debate 117 Teaching English through Debate in Classroom Contexts 129 Little Annie’s hidden curriculum: The pedagogy and politics of dial-metering public debates 137 A feminist critique of the universal audience 167 Collaborative, problem-based learning with the argument visualization software "AGORA-net" 179 Fallacies selection criteria for effective debate training 199 Applied debate: A weapon of fighting discrimination and building understanding 215 Debate, civic engagement, and post-training social networking 227 Personalizing education: Critical thinking and oral communication evaluation at US New Tech high schools 239 Slowly becoming human: The arguments and ethics surrounding human-animal hybrid embryos 253 That’s how it goes! Towards the identification of patterns in argumentative discourse 269 Fearless Speech: Parrhesia, Imitation, and Rhetorical Democracy 287 PREFACE These two volumes of proceedings contain 35 Arabic and English papers presented at the 4th International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate, and the Pedagogy of Empowerment (ICARD), held 11-13 January 2013 in Doha, Qatar. The forum brought together more than 140 participants from diverse fields for vigorous dialogue and exchange around a broad spectrum of themes, including argumentation, rhetoric, debate, critical thinking, and advocacy discourse through pedagogy. The ICARD represents a growth and maturity of a conference series that builds on three previous editions: the first held in Koper, Slovenia in 2006, the second held in Ljubljana, Slovenia in 2008, and the third held in Maribor, Slovenia in 2012. The purpose of this conference series is to make a resourceful scientific and scholarly contribution to the fields of argumentation, debate, dialogue, public speaking, rhetoric etc, through research, discussion, and publication. The conference was extremely timely. A global information society that seeks reasoned solutions to problems through broad citizen involvement needs to develop and refine techniques for criticizing and validating ideas through discourse and impart these to new generations of citizens if we are to create a better future and avoid looming crises. This conference represents a unique opportunity to share ideas and to network and cross-fertilize with global critical thinkers. The ICARD emerged in 2013 as a collaborative effort of educators, researchers, and debate practitioners in order to foster dialogue and promote discussion on argumentation, rhetoric, debate, critical thinking, and advocacy discourse. The interdisciplinary approach and the link between theory and practice are key elements of the forum. By organizing this conference, therefore, we set the goal of facilitating the exchange of ideas between academics, debate practitioners, researchers, and scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds to enrich current trends in both theory and practice. The event convened scholars, researchers, educators, practitioners, and organizers of local, national and international debating networks from 36 countries representing Africa, Europe, North America, Latin America, and Australia. The contributions, which demonstrate a resourceful variety in background, approach, and style, provided the foundation of three days of intense debate and discussion during the conference and each paper represents a substantial contribution to the advancement of scholarship around the conference themes. Dr Hayat A Maarafi Executive Director QatarDebate Center DEBATE AND FALLACIES IN MOVIES ADELINO CATTANI University of Padua, Italy ABSTRACT A movie can be a practical resource for introducing and explaining debating processes and modalities. In particular, Thank You for Smoking by Jason Reitman (2005) is a perfect film-laboratory for analyzing argumentative dialogues in the framework of a vivid debate. The movie can provide examples of how to argue effectively, how to address a difficult situation, how to bring divergent interests together through effective arguments, how to capture and hold an audience’s attention, how to use rhetorical tactics to sway even the toughest audience, how to argue and persuade by means of humor, how to use and to reply to fallacies. In sum, this – and other films like Twelve Angry Men by Sidney Lumet (1957), Inherit the Wind by Stanley Kramer (1960), and The Great Debaters by Denzel Washington (2007) – are helpful introduction to the logic of controversy and offer a witty exercise on debate. Keywords: Argumentation, debate, fallacies, movie, persuasion, rhetoric, sophism. 9 CHAPTER I - DEBATE AND FALLACIES IN MOVIES Cinema is increasingly used to introduce and highlight social problems, moral issues, even philosophical ideas, and some films raise important question of their own (see: Falzon 2007, Mulhall 2008, Paisley and Plantiga 2008, Wartenberg 2007). A movie, along with its dialogical dimension, can also be a practical resource for introducing and explaining debate processes and modalities, in order to illustrate how to support claims with reason, evidence and appropriate language. Movies are economical, available, simple, and valuable tools for teaching debate skills and how to avoid debate mistakes. Two classical and two more recent films are perfect examples for analyzing argumentative dialogues in the framework of a vivid, dramatic or brilliant, debate: Twelve Angry Men by Sidney Lumet (Metro-Goldwin-Mayer 1957) – and its remake 12 by Nikita Michalkov (Three T Productions 2007) – , Inherit the Wind by Stanley Kramer (Metro-Goldwin-Mayer 1960), Thank You for Smoking by Jason Reitman (Lucky Red 2005), and The Great Debaters by Denzel Washington (Harpo Films 2007). Twelve Angry Men is a sample of a real discussion where one of the jurors, the more responsible one, succeeds to change the mind of the other eleven, step-by-step, one-by-one. A teenager is accused on a capital murder charge of having knifed his father to death. All evidence seems to point to the boy. The film charts the debating process of twelve jurors whose initial “guilty” conviction becomes a final “not guilty”, simply through argumentation. “The film can be an innovative, practical and highly effective way of demonstrating to the students that critical thinking skills can be, quite literally, a matters of life and death” (Nardone 1995: 313), as the judge summons the twelve members of the jury at the start of the movie: “One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, then you must declare him not guilty… You are faced with a great responsibility”. The film illustrates the effort for inducing somebody to believe or to do something. And it shows how to capture the single addressee’s attention, one-by-one, singularly, because argumentation is personal, different from the logical demonstration or the mathematical proof that should be convincing for a universal audience. Demonstration and argumentation, in fact, share the common aim to prove by means of an inferential process. But they have important distinguishing traits: different subject matters, level