Adversarial Argument, Belief Change, and Vulnerability

Abstract

When people argue, they are vulnerable to unwanted and costly changes in their beliefs. This vulnerability motivates the position that belief involuntarism makes argument inherently adversarial (Casey, Informal Log 40:77–108, 2020), as well as the development of alternatives to adversarial argumentation such as “invitational rhetoric” (Foss and Griffin, Commun Monogr 62:2–18, 1995). The emphasis on involuntary belief change in such accounts, in our perspective, neglects three dimensions of arguing: the diversity of arguer intentions, audience agency, and the benefits of belief change. The complex impact of arguments on both audiences and arguers involves vulnerabilities related to various forces of argument, not just the intellectual force of premise-conclusion complexes. Shifting emphasis from adversariality to vulnerability, we propose a more holistic understanding of argument, in which vulnerability reveals various sources of strength and opportunity in addition to risk.

The Influences on Beliefs and Autonomous Strategies: Analyzing the Processes and Methods of Belief Formation

“…Because Howes and Hundleby offer more instances and supporting data than Casy does, the author finds their argument to be more convincing. They also acknowledge the limitations and ethical issues of invitational rhetoric and suggest ways to overcome them [8]. Therefore, the author thinks that invitational rhetoric is a more effective and respectful way to communicate and influence beliefs than adversarial dialogue and could serve as an important tool to voluntarily form and sustain beliefs.…”

“…However, Howes and Hundleby (2021) challenge Casy's view and offer a solution to address manipulation of beliefs [8]. They point out that Casy limits the form of communication to the debater and the other debater as the audience [8].…”

“…However, Howes and Hundleby (2021) challenge Casy's view and offer a solution to address manipulation of beliefs [8]. They point out that Casy limits the form of communication to the debater and the other debater as the audience [8]. They suggest a kind of communication they refer to as "invitational rhetoric" that is non-confrontational, unrestricted, and egalitarian [8].…”

“…They point out that Casy limits the form of communication to the debater and the other debater as the audience [8]. They suggest a kind of communication they refer to as "invitational rhetoric" that is non-confrontational, unrestricted, and egalitarian [8]. According to their explanation, this style of communication, which offers the viewpoint unequivocally and without judgment or evaluation, enhances the subject's capacity for critical thought and motivation and, in the long run, results in an autonomous revision of views [8].…”

“…They suggest a kind of communication they refer to as "invitational rhetoric" that is non-confrontational, unrestricted, and egalitarian [8]. According to their explanation, this style of communication, which offers the viewpoint unequivocally and without judgment or evaluation, enhances the subject's capacity for critical thought and motivation and, in the long run, results in an autonomous revision of views [8]. Because Howes and Hundleby offer more instances and supporting data than Casy does, the author finds their argument to be more convincing.…”