Argumentative Patterns in the Political Domain: The Case of European Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry

Andone, Corina

doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9372-4

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Ireland, opinion polls were used as a justification for or against the legislative reform. There has been discussion whether ad populum would be reasonable and not fallacious in the political debate [ 32 , 49 ]. It is acknowledged that in democratic countries, policy makers are responsible for their voters and should, thus, pay attention to the public.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe ethical discussion about abortion has been polarized in Finland and the Republic of Ireland, two European countries with very different abortion legislation (liberal vs. highly restrictive). The aim of the present study was to analyze experiential thinking patterns and argumentative strategies in political and layperson debates regarding induced abortion.MethodsThe content of Finnish and Irish texts (n = 493), consisting of transcripts of parliamentary debates and online texts, such as blogs, was analyzed systematically. The texts were investigated for the aspects of experiential thinking, for selected argumentative moves and for any differences in the prevalence of these features between countries or between political vs. layperson debates.ResultsThe Finnish and Irish discussions about induced abortion relied heavily on experiential thinking patterns and emotionally laden arguments instead of objective research data. This was evident in the very high prevalence of testimonials, narratives, loaded language and appeals to emotion in both political and layperson debates regardless of the country or the debater's position on abortion issue. Research data that did not support the position of the debater were relatively often omitted by confirmation bias. The Irish debaters appealed to popularity more often than the Finnish ones, while magical/religious thinking was mainly observed in the Finnish layperson discussion. The national history and the prevailing cultural and religious atmosphere of the two countries could explain these differences.ConclusionsThe abortion debate mostly reinforces the opinions of one's peer group rather than convinces the opposite party to change their position. The stalemate and continuation of the same arguments being repeated could be associated with experiential thinking and emotional argumentative strategies in both political and layperson debates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They have all adopted Walton's perspective that any populist argument's reasonableness depends on the outcome of applying the general critical questions that apply to any subtype of this kind of argument. 10 In contrast, Walton himself relates his assessment of populist arguments to the role of majority in a democracy, and so too do Minot (1981) and Andone (2015Andone ( , 2016. Walton (1992, p. 65) says that populist arguments can be 'nonfallacious in some contexts of dialogue' , (…) '[which is] especially true in (…) those of political argumentation in a democratic system' .…”

Section: Populist Arguments In the Context Of Political Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Like Walton, Minot (1981) and Andone (2015Andone ( , 2016) also derive the reasonableness of a populist argument in a political context from the imperatives of a democratic society. Both of these authors consider that there should be a relation between how people in a society think about certain societal developments on the one hand and actual policy-making on the other.…”

Section: Populist Arguments In the Context Of Political Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If we focus on the bandwagon variant alone, the literature seems to be ambivalent about whether it is reasonable or not. Whereas authors working in the tradition of Informal Logic are notably very negative about this type of argument, others have argued that appeals to popularity may sometimes be reasonable, especially in the context of deliberation (Minot, 1981;Walton, 1992Walton, , 1999Walton, , 2006Kienpointner, 2003;Reisigl, 2006;Oswald and Hart, 2013;Andone, 2015Andone, , 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“The people want it”

Jansen

2020

JAIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reflects on the reasonableness of populist arguments supporting a prescriptive standpoint in the context of deliberation (which I call ‘deliberative’ populist arguments). A literature survey shows a divide between authors who claim that populist arguments are always fallacious and those who think that in some situations they can be reasonable, including the context of political deliberation. It is then argued that deliberative populist arguments are based on a linking premise that appeals to majority opinion as a principle of democracy. This linking premise differs from the one underlying the traditional interpretation of a fallacious populist argument (argumentum ad populum) and appears at first sight to make the argument reasonable. However, I conclude that a deliberative populist argument is also unreasonable, because it acts merely as a trump card, creating a false impression about democracy and avoiding engagement in real debate and substantive reasons.

show abstract

“…Pragma-dialecticians have qualitatively investigated the prototypical argument pattern containing pragmatic argumentation in the legislative (Andone 2016;Van Eemeren and Garssen 2014;Garssen 2016), legal (Feteris 2016), medical and scientific (Wagemans 2016) domains.…”

Section: Design Theoretical Requirements: Argument Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining

Musi

Aakhus

2018

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective (e.g., group, online community) manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are generated in the making and defending of standpoints. The design premises for the macroscope build on insights about argument patterns from pragma-dialectical theory by incorporating research and theory on disagreement management and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The design reconceptualizes prototypical and stereotypical argument patterns for characterizing large-scale argumentation. A prototype of the macroscope is tested on data drawn from six threads about oil-drilling and fracking from the subreddit Changemyview. The implementation suggests the efficacy of the macroscope's design and potential for identifying what communities make controversial and how the disagreement space in a polylogue is managed through stereotypical argument patterns in terms of claims/premises, inferential relations, and presentational devices.

show abstract

Argumentative Patterns in the Political Domain: The Case of European Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Abortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions

Abortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions

“The people want it”

Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About