Types of Critical Discussions
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
A persuasion dialogue can be of two basic types. In an asymmetrical persuasion dialogue, the type of obligation of the one participant is different from that of the other. In the symmetrical persuasion dialogue, both participants have the same types of obligation.
The two types of persuasion dialogue, or critical discussion (refer to Critical Discussion), then, are (Walton 2008, 11):
- Asymmetrical persuasion dialogue or asymmetrical critical discussion, wherein the obligations of participants in the dialogue are different
- Symmetrical persuasion dialogue or symmetrical critical discussion, wherein the obligations of participants in the dialogue are the same
There are shorter terms by which to refer to each of these types (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
It can be said of participants in a dispute that they are “strongly opposed,¨ whereas it can be said of participants in a dissent that they are “weakly opposed¨ (Walton 2008, 12).
As a more concrete example of a dissent, consider the following (Walton 2008, 11):
Example 1.1 from “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
Clearly, Erik “is not trying to prove the negative thesis that God does not exist¨ such that “his obligation is only to raise questions which reflect his doubts about the acceptability of Karl’s arguments¨ (Ibid). Another way of putting this is that (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
Erik had only the negative burden of throwing doubts on Karl’s proof.
The dispute would instead look more like the following (Ibid):
Example 1.2 from “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
Mary is a committed atheist who is arguing that God does not exist. Barbara is a believer in God, and she is trying to convince Mary that God does exist. Each person is trying to refute the thesis of the other.
In this example, it is clear that “both Mary and Barbara have the same type of obligation, namely to prove her thesis¨ (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
We could say that both have a positive burden of proof.
A burden of proof for an interlocutor means that that interlocutor with (Walton 2008, 11-12):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] an obligation to prove has the ‘burden´ (or obligation) to carry out this task.
asymmetrical_persuasion_dialogue symmetrical_persuasion_dialogue persuasion_dialogue asymmetrical_critical_discussion symmetrical_critical_discussion critical_discussion logic informal_logic burden_of_proof logic informal_logic argumentation_theory argumentative_dialogue communication_theory argument logical_pragmatics reason reasoning argumentation dialectics
bibliography
- “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue.” In Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd ed., 2–37. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.