Types of Argumentative Dialogue
Insofar as arguments occur in a dialogue, and every dialogue has a goal independent of each dialogue participants’ goals (refer to 20241028161255-Argument_Evaluation_and_Dialogue_Goals), argumentative dialogues can be classified by the goal the argument is trying to achieve, or what the kind of communication participants engage in within a dialogue produces (Walton 2008, 3).
Personal Quarrel
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
One context of dialogue is the personal quarrel[sic], characterized by aggressive personal attack, heightened appeal to emotions, and the desire to win the argument at all costs. The quarrel is characterized by bitter recriminations, a loss of balanced perspective, and afterwards, most often regret for excessive personal attacks that were not meant or deserved.
Its clear that the personal quarrel here is being characterized in an adverse or unattractive way, which serves its intended condemnation (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
The quarrel represents the lowest level of argument. Reasonable standards of good argument should be designed to prevent from deteriorating into the personal quarrel. Most of the logical lessons to be drawn from the quarrel turn out to be pathological.
Question begging?
There seems to be a problem here. The text evaluates the quarrel as the “lowest level of argument,¨ but if arguments in dialogue are evaluated based on the mutual fulfillment of the goal of the dialogue by interlocutors (refer to 20241028161255-Argument_Evaluation_and_Dialogue_Goals) then the sorts of arguments typically seen in the personal quarrel could perfectly fulfill the goal of the personal quarrel. In which case, they would be good arguments. So the arguments of a personal quarrel are just assumed to be bad, and because they are arguments should avoid being designed based on the personal quarrel. This argument is circular. A more charitable version of this argument nonetheless would take it for granted that someone does not want a personal quarrel. It would seem evaluation of arguments is subordinate to evaluations of dialogue types.
Benefits of personal quarrel
What benefits are there, if any, from or of a personal quarrel? What is the relationship between logic and the desire to “win¨ in a dialogue? Is that relationship antagonistic, co-operative, etc.?
Goal of personal quarrel
To evaluate the personal quarrel qua dialogue, one needs to figure out what the goal of a personal quarrel is. What is the goal of a personal quarrel?
Dialogue, or other interactions, wherein one party tries to attack and defeat the other are described as “eristic¨ (Ibid).
Goal of personal quarrel
If the goal of a personal quarrel is to win, or to defeat other participants in the dialogue, what exactly constitutes winning or defeating in a way that differentiates it from other types of dialogue?
(Forensic) Debate
On the other hand (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
Another context of dialogue is the (forensic) debate[sic]. The forensic debate is more regulated than the quarrel. […] The debate is regulated by rules of procedure that determine when each arguer may speak, and how long each may speak. In some cases, a debate may be judged by an audience who may take a vote at the conclusion of the debate, the majority of voters determining who won the debate.
Unlike the personal quarrel (refer to Personal Quarrel) (Walton 2008, 4):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…], some debates are controlled by rules that disallow the more severe forms of personal attack and other aggressive or fallacious tactics. The rules of the forensic debate are often very permissive, however, and may allow all kinds of fallacious arguments. […] Such fallacious moves may not only be tolerated, but even praised as good tactics of debating.
Potential circularity again
It seems that there is still an evaluation of arguments in given dialogue that presupposes the value of that form or type of dialogue, that then lends to circular reasoning about the value of the arguments in the dialogue. This was seen in the section Personal Quarrel. Going forward, lets take it for granted that we value dialogue whose goal accords most with argumentation that is, among other things, logically valid or sound.
Eureka
The goal of forensic debate dialogue would seem to exist in relation to the voluntary goals of a third-party that is not actively participating in the dialogue itself, but passively observing or actively policing it, in addition to the voluntary goals of active dialogue participants. It’s not clear what those goals of the passive, observant pseudo-participants are, and so forensic debate interlocutors must continually regulate their messages and speech acts in accord with the expected or predicted criteria of the passive, observant pseudo-participants. This so-called “participant¨ can be the audience, the coach, or even the institutional setting the event is taking place in.
The goal of the forensic debate is to:
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] win a verbal victory against [the] opponent, by impressing the audience (or referee) of the debate.
That is, it is also a form of eristic dialogue (again, see the end of Personal Quarrel).
Critical Discussion
Critical discussion, also called “persuasion dialogue,¨ has as its “main method¨ (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] for each participant to prove his own thesis by the rules of inference from the concessions of the other participant. […] my obligation should be to prove that thesis from premises that you accept or are committed to. Your obligation is to prove your thesis from premises that I accept or am committed to […].
The proof for any given dialogue participants’ thesis then can come in two forms (Walton 2008, 5):
- Internal proof, that proof which relates to the aforementioned obligations of the persuasion dialogue or critical discussion–that is, the obligation to prove one’s thesis based on another’s concessions or the premises others are willing to accept or be committed to. It is proof “from within¨ the beliefs or claims of (an)other participant(s).
- External proof, which is “the introduction of ‘new facts´ into the argument,¨ that is to say the invocation of reasons, especially empirical or authority-based reasons, independent of the beliefs of other, or any, participants, that nonetheless backs up or supports one’s thesis.
What can be classified as external or internal proof varies over time in the persuasion dialogue or critical discussion due to internal proof being contingent on the mental states of other dialogue participants, i.e. their commitments, concessions, etc., which can change in time (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
Once a proposition is advanced by one participant on the basis of external proof, and accepted by the other participant, it can then be appealed to as a premise suitable for an internal proof.
Arguably, a corollary obligation to that of recruiting the claims, knowledge or beliefs of interlocutors to prove one’s thesis is the obligation (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] to co-operate with the other participant’s attempts to prove [their] thesis […]
What is the Goal
While the method is clear, towards what goal is the persuasion dialogue or critical discussion oriented?
The goal of critical discussion as consensus
Because the goal of each participant in the persuasion dialogue or critical discussion is to prove their claim, it is assumed that the goal of the persuasion dialogue or critical discussion as such is to produce a proven conclusion. However, this does not seem to be the goal, as revealed by the method. Rather, the goal is to reach a kind of consensus regarding the content of knowledge or the relative appropriateness of belief, i.e. the “proportionality¨ of belief. This is why it is not enough for each participant to simply provide extant evidence or their own prior beliefs to defend their thesis, but to recruit that of others as well. Put simply, the point is to persuade, and persuasion is about achieving consensus.
flowchart TB A --> B & D C --> D & B subgraph id1 ["What I want to prove"] A("My premises") B("My intended conclusion") end subgraph id2 ["What you want to prove"] C("Your premises") D("Your intended conclusion") end
Relationship between persuasion and impressing via performance
To what extent do the goals of the persuasion dialogue and the forensic debate, as seen in (Forensic) Debate, converge? To what extent do those goals diverge? Do the methods or techniques of one lend themselves to the other and vice versa? More specifically, is impressing third-party onlookers with one’s performance incompatible with achieving consensus? Why or why not?
Inquiry
In an inquiry, on the other hand, the (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] premises can only be propositions that are known to be true, that have been established as reliable knowledge to the satisfaction of all parties […]
In the inquiry, unlike in a critical discussion or persuasion dialogue (see Critical Discussion), the consensus already exists or at the very least has just recently been established. One might wonder what, then, is still left to do insofar as argumentative dialogue in particular is concerned.
Well, there can be an exploration of the unforeseen implications of currently existing knowledge, or of some consensus, or the documentation of that knowledge or consensus so as to come to an additional conclusion {Walton 2008, 6}:
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
The basic goal of the inquiry is increment of knowledge, and therefore the inquiry is an essentially cumulative[sic] type of dialogue, meaning that retraction of commitment is not anticipated.
Note
One way of thinking about this is that the inquiry is a dialogue that operates within a specific or narrow scope, such that there would be no expectation among participants that that scope will be escaped. In fact, such a move would be seen as derailing the inquiry, transforming the dialogue into something more akin to a critical discussion at best.
The consensus which is presupposed and determines the scope of the inquiry is not, and cannot be, just a flimsy and capricious one, as in the inquiry it is not the case that (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] the best one can hope for is plausible commitment to an opinion based on reasoned (but not conclusive) evidence.
Consequently, the inquiry has a fixation and focus on analyzing the available evidence and what weight it may give several different potential conclusions (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] the inquiry seeks out proof, or the establishment of as much certainty as can be obtained by the given evidence. Evidential priority is the key feature of the inquiry, for the inquiry is strongly directed towards deriving conclusions from premises that can be well established on solid evidence.
Critical discussion as setting up the inquiry
Is it possible to really engage in a pure inquiry, without having to shift back and forth between it and other forms of dialogue, such as the critical discussion (refer to Critical Discussion)? To what extent does the critical discussion contribute to the moves and facts allowed to act as the foundation in or material of the inquiry?
Negotiation Dialogue
The negotiation dialogue is primarily characterized by a process of bargaining for the sake of fulfilling self-interest (Walton 2008, 6-7):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] the primary goal is self-interest, and the method is to bargain. Bargaining makes no pretensions to be an objective inquiry into the truth of a matter. Indeed, negotiation, […], need not involve commitment to the truth of propositions, or convictions that ideals are based on strong arguments.
This is because (Walton 2008, 7):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] commitments in bargaining are not commitments […], but trade-offs that can be sacrificed for gains elsewhere.
That is, what is at stake is not “opinions about what is true, or convictions about what is believable,¨ but the extent to which the beliefs or opinions of dialogue participants provide some benefit in acquiring that which is in one’s self-interest (Ibid).
From negotiation to critical discussion or inquiry
The negotiation dialogue can always shift into a critical discussion (refer to Critical Discussion) or even an inquiry (refer to Inquiry) insofar as the relevant facts of a situation may equally influence the concrete, strategic self-interest of the participants in such a way that it would cause a larger or smaller loss for all negotiation participants. An example is a custody dispute that starts off as a negotiation wherein either party is using any tactic in dialogue that will get them custody, but such that it eventually leads to a critical discussion about which person is best suited to have exercise that custody (Ibid).
Question
If there must be some consensus about facts and some shared belief necessary in order to be able to bargain in a negotiation and yet other forms of dialogue can be modeled as a kind of negotiation around a societal goal and in the interest of some social obligations imposed by that societal goal, is the negotiation dialogue the primitive or fundamental form of dialogue? Or is negotiation rather the form of dialogue that emerges given the context that can be laid out by other forms of dialogue for a negotiation? How does negotiation play or not play a role across all forms of dialogue?
Other forms of dialogue
While the quarrel, the (forensic) debate, the critical discussion, the inquiry, and the negotiation dialogue are the main, relevant types of argumentative dialogue that exist out there, there are three other kinds, some of which may be just as if not more common (Walton 2008, 7-8):
- Information-seeking dialogue, wherein a given party in a dialogue seeks to extract information other parties to the dialogue are thought to possess
- Action-seeking dialogue, wherein a given party in a dialogue seeks to provoke other parties to the dialogue into following a particular course of action
- Educational dialogue, wherein a given party in a dialogue seeks to impart knowledge, typically via instruction, to other parties in the dialogue
Proposal
Another name that action-seeking dialogue could be given is “activist dialogue.¨
personal_quarrel communication_theory argumentation_theory informal_logic reason reasoning eristic_dialogue critical_discussion persuasive_dialogue information-seeking_dialogue action-seeking_dialogue activist_dialogue negotiation_dialogue educational_dialogue implication conviction criticism argumentative_dialogue internal_proof external_proof interlocutor
bibliography
- “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue.” In Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd ed., 2–37. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.