Deliberative Rhetoric: Arguing about Doing

Kock, Christian

doi:10.22329/wsia.05.2017

Cited by 22 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These dichotomies serve a heuristic value, and our interest lies especially in the gradations. We do not follow Kock (2017) who understands epistemic argumentation as relating to validity claims of truth. When we speak of the epistemic dimension of argumentation, we refer to the fact that while arguing, arguers will not only establish what is controversial but also what is taken to be valid, whether that be fact or value based.…”

Section: Agonism Cooperation and In-betweenmentioning

confidence: 96%

Frozen

Hannken-Illjes

Bose

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we consider the ways different degrees of dissent are established in interaction, especially in interactions among children. One important aspect in the development of the ability to argue is the framing of interactions as rather cooperative or agonistic. Different framings seem to allow for different forms of argumentative activity. The focus in this paper is on the mediation of degrees of dissensus in argumentation in child-child communication. It is established, we argue, through verbal as well as non-verbal means, and the agonistic and cooperativity can be indicators for the space argumentation has in child-child interaction.

show abstract

Section: Agonism Cooperation and In-betweenmentioning

confidence: 96%

Frozen

Hannken-Illjes

Bose

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…( 2020 , p. 310). 4 I emphasize that the “intervention of time” plays an essential role in distinguishing argumentation from demonstration and stress that rhetorical argumentation revolves around practical choice (Kock 2017 ). Furthermore, where demonstration leads to true conclusions, independent of the passing of time, argumentation is an action one performs with words when seeking adherence to a proposal.…”

Section: Temporality and Emotion In Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the safest bet for any decision maker might be to hold out for more data and their tantalizing promise of predictability, novel and uncertain situations amplify the dilemma between an epistemic waiting game and a prudential willingness to act incisively. Existing argumentation research suggests deliberation about choice of action (Kock 2017 ) under uncertain circumstances (Walton 1990 ; Tindale 2018 ) define rhetorical situations and rhetorical argumentation, essentially, as “The Realm of the Uncertain” (Kock 2020 , p. 288).…”

Section: Introduction: “What You Do Today Makes a Difference”mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, emotions are inevitable, especially in situations of uncertainty, but a person’s decision-making capacity also depends on them (Damasio 1994 ). Building on Damasio’s groundbreaking work, Barrett underlined: “Affect is not just necessary for wisdom; it’s also irrevocably woven into the fabric of every decision” ( 2017 , p. 80). 2…”

Section: Introduction: “What You Do Today Makes a Difference”mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I seek to contribute to rhetorical argumentation in two respects. Theoretically, understanding the temporality of emotion can strengthen our appreciation of the logos of the passions (Brinton 1988a ; Waddell 1990 ; Micheli 2010 ), which, I argue, is necessary in any deliberation about choice where emotions and incommensurable values render a common yardstick for reaching a “true” conclusion futile (Kock 2017 , p. 60). Societally, the year 2020 marks the outbreak of a global pandemic and the rise of a social movement against systemic racism, not to mention an ongoing climate crisis.…”

Section: Introduction: “What You Do Today Makes a Difference”mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Affecting Argumentative Action: The Temporality of Decisive Emotion

Lantz

2021

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UK Government’s “Balancing Act” in the Pandemic: Rational Decision-Making from an Argumentative Perspective

Fairclough

2022

The Pandemic of Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter looks at how the “balance” between lives, livelihoods and other concerns was talked about in four main newspapers in the UK, between March 2020 and March 2021, in assessing the UK government’s performance. Different arguments were made for opposite conclusions, favouring either strict and prolonged lockdowns or, on the contrary, a speedy exit from lockdown and a resumption of normal life. From the point of view of argumentation theory, the empirical data suggests that what is being balanced or weighed together in pro/con argumentation by two opposite parties are not as much the costs and benefits of one’s own proposal, but the costs of one proposal against the costs of its alternative (a “cost-cost” analysis). Rather than defending their own proposal by arguing that the benefits outweigh the costs, each side is criticizing the opponent’s proposal by claiming that the costs of their proposal are more unacceptable than the costs of their own. An implicit minimax strategy (minimize costs in a worst-case scenario) was applied in different ways, depending on how the consequences were assessed, and how this assessment changed over time. The debate over lockdown illustrated an interesting type of pro/con argument, typical to crisis situations, in which all the intended “benefits” were in fact avoided “costs”, and contrasted a medical/epidemiological perspective with a political perspective on the best course of action.

show abstract

Deliberative Rhetoric: Arguing about Doing

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Frozen

Frozen

Affecting Argumentative Action: The Temporality of Decisive Emotion

The UK Government’s “Balancing Act” in the Pandemic: Rational Decision-Making from an Argumentative Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About