Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation

Abstract

This article deals with the relationship between argumentation and persuasion. It defends the idea that these two concepts are not as opposed as all too often said. If it is important to recognize their differences (there are argumentative discourses without persuasion and persuasive discourses without argumentation), there is nevertheless an overlap, in which characteristics are taken from both. We propose to call this overlap ''persuasive argumentation''. In order to bridge argumentation and persuasion, we will first distinguish the latter from manipulation. In the second part of this article, we will analyze four cases of persuasive argumentation: the enthymeme, a few rhetorical figures, narration and visual argumentation.

Which argument is more convincing? Analyzing and predicting convincingness of Web arguments using bidirectional LSTM

“…Since the main goal of argumentation is persuasion (Nettel and Roque, 2011;Mercier and Sperber, 2011;Blair, 2011;OKeefe, 2011) we take a pragmatic perspective on qualitative properties of argumentation and investigate a new high-level task. We asked whether we could quantify and predict how convincing an argument is.…”

The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation

“…This view has compelled researchers of visual argumentation to examine and clarify the relationship between visual persuasion and visual argumentation (e.g. Blair 1996Blair , 2004Slade 2003;Ripley 2008;Roque 2012;Nettel and Roque 2012), Another recurring theme in the study of visual and multimodal argumentation is what Godden (2015) has called ''the oldest and most basic question of the interpretative research in visual argumentation'': the question of propositionality. Is visual argument propositional?…”

How Globo media manipulated the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff

“…Jacobs et al, 1996); generalizations (Bilmes, 2008; Van Dijk, 1984, 1987) and metaphors (Chilton, 2005; Medhurst, 1990); forms of actor descriptions (Van Leeuwen, 1996); granularity and other modes of situation or event description: more or less precise or complete, detailed or vague, close versus distant, and so on (Bhatia, 2005; Van Dijk, 2014; Zhang, 2015); storytelling (see e.g. Auvinen et al, 2013; Van Dijk, 1984); argumentation (Boix, 2007; Ilatov, 1993; Kienpointer, 2005; Nettel and Roque, 2012); superstructural (schematic) categories, such as headlines in news reports (Van Dijk, 1988a, 1988b); general ideological polarization between in-groups (Us) and out-groups (Them; Van Dijk, 1998). …”