Rules of Critical Discussion Across Stages
While the types of rules that may apply across different stages of an argumentative dialogue are clear enough (see 20241030172002-Stages_of_Argumentative_Dialogue), what those rules are, especially for critical discussions, has yet to be specified. Investigating and understanding the rules of a dialogue according to its goal is important because (Walton 2008, 16):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
What fallacies are more broadly can be explored in 20241102165510-Argument_Blunders_v._Argument_Fallacies.
The following moves are prohibited at different stages (Walton 2008, 16-17):
| opening stage | confrontation stage | argumentation stage | closing stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Abrupt, unlicensed shifts from one dialogue type to another | 1. Unlicensed attempts at agenda changes 2. Refusals to agree to a specific dialogue agenda, i.e. sabotaging the dialogue | 1. Shirked efforts in fulfilling a dialogue obligation 2. Unlicensed shifts in the burden of proof 3. Allegations of internal proof while there is neglect or ignorance of the commitment-stores of other parties 4. Appeals to external proof while provision of arguments is neglected 5. Provisions of irrelevant information as argumentation or question response 6. Negligence of essential questions for the evolution of the dialogue, and inappropriate questions 7. Evasions of relevant and appropriate questions 8. Negligence of necessary clarification or justification of the meaning or definition of a decisive term in an argument at appropriate levels of precision/accuracy | 1. Attempts at forceful closure of a dialogue, despite lack of mutual agreement or fulfillment of dialogue goal for closure |
Insofar as the prohibition of the above moves “give […) the flavor of a persuasion dialogue as a coherent and regulated form of activity,¨ the above moves are prohibited specifically under critical discussion or persuasion dialogue (see Critical Discussion & 20241031110100-Types_of_Critical_Discussions) (Walton 2008, 17). After all, “there are other kinds of dialogue, such as negotiation, for example, where rules may be different in certain respects from those of the persuasion dialogue¨ (refer to Negotiation Dialogue). Consequently:
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
[…] dialectical shifts can influence our judgment on whether a certain speech act is “fallacious¨ or not.
It is important to keep in mind that (Ibid):
From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic
informal_logic logical_pragmatics argumentation argumentation_theory argumentative_dialogue critical_discussion persuasion_dialogue internal_proof external_proof dialectics
bibliography
- “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue.” In Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd ed., 2–37. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.