the amsterdam argumentation chronicle - Universiteit van Amsterdam

21 Pages·2009·0.37 MB·English

by  Bilal Amjarso

THE AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION CHRONICLE
VOL. 5, NO. 1, March 2009
Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric
University of Amsterdam

Dear friends,

It is our pleasure to send you the new issue of the Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle.
As usual, we have tried to bring you the latest news and updates from our participation in
the world of argumentation. We are proud to report in this issue on the first results of our
collaboration with our colleagues from the University of Lugano, the University of
Lausanne and the University of Neuchâtel, which has culminated in the inauguration of
the Argupolis doctoral programme, as well as on our academic exchange
with the Department of Communication Studies of Northwestern University. Also
enclosed are interviews in which two distinguished scholars talk about their past, current,
and future research, and reports by students and young researchers on their work in
argumentation.

We hope that you will enjoy reading this issue.

With kind regards,

Frans van Eemeren
Argupolis PhD students, Lugano, Switzerland, January 2009
2 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1

In this issue

Students about their study programme
A nice and interesting programme
By Renske Wierda……………………………………………………………...……3

Voice from within
Interview with José Plug…………………………………………………………….4

Career story
Memoirs and updates of a Ph.D. student in the USA
By Leon Laureij………………………………………………………………………8

Work in progress
Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type
By Marcin Lewinski………………………………………………………………….9

Thesis summary
Analyzing problem-solving in negotiations
By Alex Thirlwall……………………………………………………………………11

Voice from without
Interview with Michael Leff……………………………………………………..….12

News………………………………………………………………………………….15

Book publications of the Amsterdam
School………………………………………………………………………………...20

Call for papers for the 7th ISSA Conference………………………………………..21
3 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1
STUDENTS ABOUT countries and different backgrounds) and the
research colloquia of the department. It showed
THEIR STUDY that my minor in Argumentation provided a good
background for me; I didn’t have to spend much
PROGRAMME
time on getting acquainted with all the aspects of
pragma-dialectics while this proved to be harder

for some of my international fellow students. I
A nice and interesting programme
particularly enjoyed the Fallacies course in which I
By Renske Wierda
designed and carried out a pilot study to investigate

the intuitive evaluation by ordinary language users
of a certain fallacy.
A few months into the programme, I
realized that I wanted to switch to the Research
Master’s programme Rhetoric, Argumentation
theory & Philosophy (RAP). While DASA and RAP
students basically follow the same courses in the
first year and therefore have all their classes
together, the RAP students have an extra course in
Logic and Philosophy of Language in the second
semester while DASA students are already working
on their master’s thesis by then. Besides, while
DASA only lasts one year, RAP has an extra year in
which students can follow tutorials and electives
and get to write a more extensive thesis based on
research they have conducted. These differences
made it clear to me that I wanted to take part in
the RAP programme, since argumentation theory
appealed to me in such a way that I would gladly
spend another year working on it rather than
already having to write a thesis after one year. So I

decided to apply for the RAP programme per
Renske Wierda (from the Netherlands) graduated in 2009 from September, 2007 and to take the extra course on
the Research Master Rhetoric, Argumentation Theory and
logic and philosophy instead of starting on a DASA
Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.
thesis. Though I had already encountered much of

the topics in this class on logic and the philosophy
When I started the DASA (Discourse &
of language in my BA, I really enjoyed it. The way
Argumentation Studies Amsterdam) programme in
it was taught was interesting, fun and motivating. I
September, 2006, I had just finished a BA
could certainly recommend DASA students (for
programme of Philosophy at the University of
whom it is not an obliged course) to take it as an
Amsterdam. As part of a minor in Argumentation,
extra course, since it introduces a lot of interesting
I had followed four courses of the BA Language &
theories that serve as a background to
Communication, organized by the Department of
argumentation theory.
Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory
When I started the second year of RAP, I
and Rhetoric. These courses were my first
also started a job as student assistant to Frans van
introduction to both pragma-dialectics and the
Eemeren, together with a fellow student. This
teachers of this department, and both left a good
brought me into contact with the faculty members
impression on me. When I had to decide which
and the PhD students of the department on a more
MA programme I was to enroll in, I realized that I
personal basis. This led me to appreciate the
would rather continue my academic career in
atmosphere in the department even more and made
argumentation theory than in philosophy. This led
me wonder if it would be possible to continue a
me to choose the DASA programme.
career at this department. During the year, I had help
I enjoyed the courses, the international
from Bart Garssen and Frans van Eemeren in writing
atmosphere (with students from many different
a research proposal on the argument by authority in
4 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1
medical advertisements for a possible PhD position, On February 13, 2009, she had the following interview
with Bilal Amjarso.
but I did not manage to get such a position. I did,

however, get a good idea of a subject for my

master’s thesis from this. Supervised by Bart

Garssen, I started working on a characterization of
Amjarso: Dr. Plug, welcome to this interview. I want
the argument by authority in medical
to start from where your journey into the world of
advertisements, the critical questions that could be
argumentation theory actually started. So who is José
asked regarding the use of this argument and the
Plug, first as a student?
way advertisers could use these soundness

conditions to anticipate certain critical questions in
Plug: I started studying Dutch Language and
their strategic manoeuvring. This took me longer
Literature, with an interest in literature mainly. That
than expected; I finished my RAP programme in
is explainable in the sense that the subjects at high
two and a half years rather than two, but I was
school at that time were literature or linguistics. And
pleased with the result.
things like speech communication and applied
I graduated in January 2009. At the
linguistics did not exist as such in educational
moment, I am teaching a number of courses related
programmes. Then, at the UvA, I came across a
to argumentation theory to first year’s students in
subject that was completely new to me, and that was
Language & Communication and Philosophy. I
speech communication and, within speech
hope to find a PhD position in the near future, to
communication, the focus on argumentation. My first
carry out the rest of the research project that I have
class was with Rob Grootendorst, and I became very
started with my master’s thesis.
much interested in argumentation theory. What also

was new to me was empirical research that was done

by Bert Meuffels at that time. So I did both classes:
VOICE FROM WITHIN
argumentation theory and empirical research. As a
preparation for my MA thesis I did a minor on
Interview with José Plug, methodology at the Department of Psychology. After
finishing that, I wrote my thesis on what could be
translated as the fear of writing, which was a project
within the research that Bert was working on at that
time. At the same time I was working as a student
assistant. And with Rob Grootendorst I had published
the bibliography of argumentation theory, which was
then one of the tasks of student assistants. This was,
by the way, in the mid-eighties.

What attracted you the most in (legal)
argumentation? Was the choice a natural
consequence of your educational background or was
it a step in a new direction?

The analytical aspect of argumentation theory
attracted me very much. I mean the idea that you did
not focus only on the sentence, as we were taught to
do in linguistics classes, but that you, as it were, take
a helicopter view over the whole text and see what
happens in it. I liked the idea that an argumentative
analysis of such a text had to be thoroughly justified.
José Plug (Ph.D., Erasmus University Rotterdam) is lecturer and
Add to this the fact that the kind of texts that we
researcher at the Department of Speech Communication,
were working on were about what was going on in
Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of
Amsterdam. Her research interests include legal argumentation, society.
political argumentation and the theory of debate.
5 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1
The legal aspect came somewhat later. new edition of Argumenteren voor Juristen. But
Eveline Feteris was already working on her PhD there had to be more teaching material. So we really
thesis on legal argumentation when she taught a could do research into what was needed and what
course on the subject and I participated as a student could be developed to make a serious and coherent
in that course. At first I was interested in legal programme that was focusing on analysing and
argumentation from a practical point of view writing legal texts. The analysing part concerned in
because I was more or less squatting at that time. I particular legal decisions: students had to read a lot of
was involved in all kinds of legal procedures legal decisions. But in the past, there was not an
because the owner of the house wanted us to get analytical instrument to help them with that. That
out. So that was my only connection with legal just did not exist. For students it turned out that they
argumentation up to then. In the meantime, Frans appreciated the programme very much, although
van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Eveline Feteris some colleagues from the legal faculty were a bit
and Tjark Kruiger were working on a textbook on skeptical at the beginning. That was maybe because
legal argumentation, in which the Pragma- they did not have this subject in their own
dialectical theory was translated into the legal educational programme. The need was made very
context. This was the book Argumenteren voor explicit by people who were working in the legal
Juristen. And we, as students, had the opportunity field because they observed that graduates who
– and that was very special – to contribute to the started their career knew a lot about law but when it
book. When the book was finished, there were came to analysing and writing legal texts, there were
post-doctoral courses organised for people from the serious deficiencies.
legal field. Two of the participants in that course
were from Erasmus University in Rotterdam. They
found the course interesting not just for them but At the EUR Law Faculty you developed the so-called
also for their law students in Rotterdam. That was Moot Court programme. What was this programme
to be the beginning of my connection with the Law about?
Faculty of the Erasmus University.
The Moot Court (oefenrechtbank, in Dutch) was the
next step because the analytical and writing skills
This brings me to my third question. Before you that were taught in the first courses that we gave
joined the University of Amsterdam as a lecturer were evaluated as being very effective and very
you had taught at the Erasmus University in interesting. But oral communication skills were
Rotterdam. How do you describe your years at the missing. The idea of the Moot Court originated from
EUR? the United States. Students are taught to start from a
legal case and a court of law, as it were, was organised
It was really a fantastic time. In the first place it for them so that they had to participate either as a
was very special to find a position at a university at lawyer or as a judge. There still was the analytical
that time. It was extremely difficult to get a job. aspect of legal argumentation because students had to
Frans and the two professors from Rotterdam who analyse the texts that they had to work with but they
were in the course had all of kinds of meetings in also had to prepare a memorandum of oral pleading
order to see whether there could be positions and to present the oral pleading. So the discursive
created at the Erasmus University. So, after they argumentative aspect and legal content were
succeeded in that, I applied for a position there and integrated and made into a programme that was
I was very lucky to get it. This must have been in taught to second year students.
1987. I started together with Harm Kloosterhuis,
who had studied argumentation theory in
Amsterdam, and Ton van Haaften, who had studied You also taught briefly at the University of the
at the University of Amsterdam as well, but who Netherlands Antilles. What are your recollections
was a linguist. The three of us, together with a from this period?
colleague from the law faculty, had the opportunity
to develop an educational programme for law It was an interesting place to be because at the Law
students. What was particularly challenging was faculty of the University of the Netherlands Antilles,
that there was hardly any teaching material. Dutch Law is taught. The students that I taught were
Together with Eveline, Frans and Rob, we wrote a a special kind of students. Many of them had already
6 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1
a job. Some of them were working in politics, some interest and my work in the theory and in research
as police officers, and in order to further their are not so very different now from then, apart from
career, they had to study law. Only a few students the fact that my focus now is more on political
came straight from high school. Like all law argumentation. When I worked at the Law faculty in
students, they had the difficulty resulting from Rotterdam, we had formed a group of researchers
differences between legal language and everyday who shared the same interests. It was of course,
language because the structure of sentences and the Eveline Feteris, Harm Kloosterhuis, Henrike Janssen
words that are used in law may be much more and Ton van Haaften. We worked together then and
complex. But some of them had an extra difficulty we are still working together. So in that respect,
because the language that they used in their there is not so much of a difference. In terms of
everyday life was Papiamento, so for some of them research, we continue to organise conferences and to
Dutch was like a second language. That was why prepare joint publications.
the Law Faculty of the University of the
Netherlands Antilles wanted to have a programme
somewhat similar to the one developed at the In your work on argumentation theory, you have
Erasmus University Rotterdam. At first, students addressed different aspects of legal argumentation.
were a bit surprised that argumentation came in. For instance, you have done some work on
But it turned out to be quite successful: they liked counterarguments in legal argumentation. How in
the idea of combining insights into the your view does the nature of counterarguments (and
particularities of the linguistic aspects of law with of dealing with them) in legal argumentation differ
the argumentative aspect. from it in other types of argumentation?
What was also very nice was that students
were highly motivated and hard-working. Apart In principle, I think, there is no difference between
from our regular courses, we did courses often at counterargument in whatever context. There is
the end of the day, in the evenings, for people who though a very serious difference in how they are
had a job. Students also organised small groups of used. There are all kinds of constraints in the legal
people who were very dedicated to getting their procedure and that may have very serious
diploma and really wanted to prepare very well, so consequences. There are all kinds of laws and
they often asked me to come to the university on procedures that dictate, as it were, how and when
Sundays – unlike in the Netherlands, the buildings counterarguments can be brought forward and how
of the university were open every day of the week one can deal with them. And in that sense if
– to work together. That made it a very intensive counterarguments are overlooked or ignored, the
and fruitful period, in which I also completed my procedure may prescribe when, for instance, it is too
PhD thesis. late to deal with them, which may have very serious
consequences on the final decision. So the difference
is not in the theoretical concept of counterargument,
What is for you the key-difference between but more in the procedure of how it is used and in
working on legal argumentation from a legal that sense it is very important for the arguer to
perspective – e.g. when you are working within a anticipate counterarguments but also to identify
law department – and working on legal them and for the opponent to present them in a
argumentation from an argumentation-theory certain way. You can easily see that there is a way of
perspective – e.g. when you are working within an strategic manoeuvring in that because it can have
argumentation department? advantages to be clear about your counterarguments
or not to present them as clearly as you should from
In a law department it is necessary to primarily the other party’s perspective.
integrate all the insights from legal argumentation
theory into practical skills. So there are not so
many possibilities to work with students on the In an article on genetic arguments you state, and I
development of the theory as many as there are quote: “Standpoints or arguments put forward in the
possibilities to convert the insights into practical legislative process are transferred from a political
aspects, how to analyse a text, how to write a legal context to a legal context.” I can imagine that the
text, and how to prepare your pleading using reliance of the meaning and goals of legal rules on
argumentative structures, for example. But my such fuzzy and dubious considerations as the
7 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1
intention of the legislator and political arguments into account empirical observations regarding
given during parliamentary debates puts the argumentative practices or preconditions that are
transparency and independence of the legislative sometimes formulated in rules, we are not able to see
process into question. From an argumentation how strategic manoeuvring is affected by the
theory perspective, this state of affairs offers the opportunities and constrains of the activity type. So
analyst the opportunity to study the legislative in order to deal with what is going on in real life, we
process as a field of strategic manoeuvring. To what have to develop the concept of activity type. That it is
extent do you think the concept of strategic a fruitful and promising concept is already
manoeuvring can be useful in unravelling the demonstrated in what has been done in some of our
subtleties characterising legislative discussions? PhD projects. If you look at the activity type of the
legislative debate or prime minister question time,
It may indeed be very difficult to decide which then you see already that it really offers a lot for
arguments from a legislative debate could be analysing and evaluating the actual argumentative
referred to in order to justify the meaning of a rule. practice.
You can imagine why, in some countries, this kind
of argument is not allowed to justify a particular
interpretation of a rule. However, when this so- We have now talked about your interests, but as an
called genetic argument is allowed, as is the case in engaged argumentation theorist who has been
the Netherlands, I think the concept of strategic actively involved in the development of her study
manoeuvring is pre-eminently useful for the discipline you must have some concerns regarding
analysis of legal and legislative discussions. It is self what is happening within the field. Are there any
evident that there are opposing parties – process issues that you think still need attention from both
parties or politicians – involved in the discussion political and/or legal argumentation theorists?
on the interpretation of a rule and that all the
parties involved will try to have the discussion Yes, with respect to discussions in society on the
settled in their own favour but that at the same coarsening of political debates, for instance, the topic
time they have to be reasonable as well. So the of personal attacks that may occur in these debates is
reasonableness should be guaranteed as it were. worth studying. I think we should be concerned with
Sometimes it is explicitly stated in the rules, but in that, but still from an analytical perspective. The one
a political context there are no explicit rules that politician can easily say to the other that what the
one should be reasonable, but then you could say other has said or done is not acceptable or accuse him
that it is expected from the politicians by the voters of committing a fallacy, but we as analysts have an
and the public that there are boundaries on what instrument to say more about that, apart from only
could be done in argumentation, particularly in accusing others of committing fallacies. It is, after all,
lawmaking debates. So you see immediately that by not necessarily the case that if the one party accuses
using the concept of strategic manoeuvring that it the other party or the public thinks that a
is useful to see what happens in the argumentation contribution to the discussion is unreasonable or that
and to evaluate the practice of legislative one should not do that, it is not clear on the basis of
discussions. what kind of norm they come to a judgment like that.
Because I think the pragma-dialectical theory is very
well articulated and the norms are very clear, you
You have done some work on political debates as can say much more about not only the fallacies that
well, for instance, on apologies for inadequate uses occur in a discussion but also about the accusations,
of metaphors in political debates. With this work because they themselves can be a tactical manoeuvre.
in mind, how do you think the introduction of the Apart from the political or the legal field, I
concept of activity type into the pragma-dialectical think that there are many other argumentative
analytical framework can benefit the analysis and practices that we can contribute to and that we are
evaluation of political debates? already making some progress on. If you, for
example, look into a new field that we are currently
The concept of activity type is of great interest to working on, the field of medical communication, you
study the argumentation that is going on in specific see that the work that has been done has been
contexts and institutions, such as political or focused on the linguistic or the semantic aspects of
parliamentary debates, because if we don’t take discourse, whereas – and this is the result of a
8 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1
development in society I think – this kind of CAREER STORY
practice is becoming more and more
argumentative. For this reason, it is very useful to Memoirs and updates of a Ph.D. student in the USA
study the argumentation that is going on in there. By Leon Laureij
Of course, the linguistic, the semantic, and the
grammatical aspects are still of interest and can also
be used in the analyses, but it is very important to
focus on the argumentative aspect, and that is in a
sense new to the people working within the
specific field. It is not always so very clear to
people working within a particular field that the
centre of what is going in there is actually
argumentation.

Finally, what are your future projects?

Obviously, there has still a lot to be developed in
the field of legislative discussions, especially – and I
have written about this already, as you just
mentioned – where the legal and the political fields
come together. The actual practice that is very
Leon Laureij (from the Netherlands) graduated in 2007 from the
much of interest and that I would like to go into in
Research Master Rhetoric Argumentation Theory and Philosophy,
more detail than I have until now is the legislative
University of Amsterdam.
process in the European Parliament. The tension
between the argumentation for legislation on the
“Ipsy Dipsy!” I smile inwardly as Continental flight
national level and on the European level, for
CO70 brushes Canadian air space at an altitude of 10
instance, is an interesting topic to study for
kilometers. About to visit The Netherlands for my
argumentation theorists.
second winter break, I’m reminiscing the fun and
Currently, I am working on the project
games with which my classmates and I used to
‘Argumentation in legislative discussions’. The
approach (and offset) our serious study of
central goal of this project is to develop a model for
argumentation – that strangely elegant scholarship,
the analysis and evaluation of argumentation that is
with its erudite spokespersons and Latin lingo,
brought forward in the law making process. This
bespeaking its (at times mistaken) ancient legacy.
model should form the basis for a detailed analysis
“You said so Yourself! You’re Wrong!” -“Tell me
and evaluation of strategic manoeuvres in
why” -“Because I have blue eyes and you are a bad
legislative discussions and it could offer a starting
dancer on top of that”. Outright reasonable
point for a comparative study of legislative
circumstantial arguments, if only for those privy to
decisions taken by different legislatures in various
our adapted standards of conventional validity at the
countries regarding similar issues.
time. The fact that we would ‘debrief’ our class

meetings in Café Van Zuylen resulted in much more
Thank you for this interview.
than lasting new friendships and ridicule of newly

acquired theoretical insights into argumentation

(both of which enjoy my due respect). It also

generated an academic climate that was and is in

many ways uniquely conducive to creative and

intellectual growth.

Hikmet Unlu for instance would deliberate

over the ways in which one could precizate the

emptiness of his beer glass. Sitting with us in Van

Zuylen, he adduced his provocative ideas with

theoretical arguments borrowed from Crawshay-
9 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1
Williams and the Norwegian scholar Arne Naess. coursework and passing the qualifying exams in
Then he heard us out as we tried taking stabs at his September this year.
argumentation. A week later he delivered his As for the professionalization that started in
presentation on precization in the class on Verbal Amsterdam, at Rutgers I have been a teaching
Communication, talking just as he had when he assistant in the Intro to Communication course with
was hovering over his glass. He simply delighted 400+ students. And after two summers of
Agnès van Rees and wrote an excellent paper independently teaching the same class in a smaller
building on the refutations of both his own and his setting, this Fall I will start co-teaching the big
classmates’ arguments. lectures with a classmate. The social aspect in my
I am looking back at my studies in the Programme is different, with a 100+ PhD student
RAP programme out of sheer nostalgia, but it is body dispersed over three academic tracks. However,
also where my career story begins. At TAR I some fellow students and I started the Doctoral
independently taught an undergraduate course for Student Association, through which we organize
the first time (Kritiek en Argumentatie, as part of socials, student colloquia, publishing workshops,
the Journalism Minor). Leah Polcar helped me etcetera, and a nearby bar was already selected for
prepare a paper on online strategic manoeuvring after-class drinks that are increasing in frequency.
for my first conference paper submission (I Now all I need to do is warm them to bitterballen!
presented it at NCA in Chicago in 2007). And Bert
Meuffels gave me additional feedback on my WORK IN PROGRESS
Master thesis so I can adapt it for submission to a
journal. Although I did present my thesis in poster
format at ICA in Montréal last year, my continued Internet political discussion forums as an
career story may serve as the argument for why I argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical
have not yet managed to actually revise and submit analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring
it for publication. with critical reactions
After graduating from RAP (and enjoying By Marcin Lewinski
an amazing last Summer in Amsterdam) I moved to
New Jersey, USA, where I started the PhD
Programme in Communication at Rutgers
University in September 2007. My academic
advisor is Mark Aakhus, former advisee of Scott
Jacobs. Alongside my coursework (the mandatory
two years of PhD courses typical in the US model)
Mark has been introducing me to exciting work in
the field of Language & Social Interaction, mostly
related to the mediation and organizing of human
interaction. Together we are exploring theory and
research about how objects, tools and shared
concepts feature in communication when people
jointly pursue a specific form of purposeful
interaction, such as negotiating or brainstorming.
This spring semester I am starting a study
in the Purchasing Department of a large North-
American organization, investigating how business
contracts mediate the communication processes
involved in purchasing interactions. I will use

ethnographic observation and discourse analysis to
Marcin Lewinski (from Poland) is PhD student in the Department
empirically understand purchasers and vendors’ of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric.
normative ideals about their various work
interactions and investigate how contracts and In my research I take under close scrutiny one of the
other tools for mediation function to realize those contexts of computer-mediated communication,
ideals. I’m hoping to continue this study for my namely, political online discussion forums, in which
dissertation research after completing my
10 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 5, no. 1
Internet users debate political issues by posting through its special formal rules, informal
messages in a form similar to e-mails. conventions, and other constraints of design – affects
Ever since the inception of the Usenet discussion the way arguers can manoeuvre strategically with
system in the late 1970s, and particularly after the their argumentation, i.e., the way they can be both
introduction of the World Wide Web system in the reasonable and persuasive in a given context. For this
early 1990s, online discussion forums have been very reason, a detailed analysis of an argumentative
surrounded by quite a hype regarding the new activity type under question is necessary for a well-
opportunities they create for public discourse. One justified analysis and evaluation of concrete pieces of
of the most important hopes was that these argumentation.
topically structured, asynchronous, open, (usually) Political online discussion forums are treated
unmoderated and, most importantly, largely in my work as one of such activity types. In these
anonymous discussions would allow thousands of forums arguers advance their standpoints under
Internet users from around the world to overcome conditions of expected, open and often severe
some well-known obstacles – such as face-concerns criticism, as ordinary rules of politeness and charity
or power inequalities – to open, uninhibited are largely ineffective. There is, however, no need for
argumentative discussions, thus giving way to a any decision to be taken in result of critical
‘pure exchange of arguments.’ exchanges, which gives online forums an open-ended
At the same time, researchers have pointed and autotelic character (arguing for the sake of
to a somewhat chaotic, if not anarchic, character of arguing) alien to many institutionalised activities
the forums. They note that many online discussions with their clearly prescribed goals. Still, these
are not only open, but also open-ended, and thus discussions among many anonymous users are
potentially endless and fruitless activities where regulated by the technological design of the forums
discussants are involved in a futile recycling of (division into topical threads, record of ongoing
similar, and often aggressive, arguments. The exchanges kept, lack of procedural stages) and some
pessimistic conclusion is that online forums are norms of the net etiquette (don’t be abusive, avoid
very ineffective in terms of purposeful exchanges posting ‘me too’ messages, be to the point). Moreover,
of arguments leading to some reasonable results. arguers make use of some informal conventions, such
And such reasonable results are what one would as an implicit requirement to support the factual
expect from properly regulated types of content of their arguments with hyper-links to some
institutionalised activities of high argumentative online sources of data (news reports, statistics,
value, such as legal disputes or academic Wikipedia articles).
discussions. Having described the peculiarities of political
In my dissertation, I tackle the issue of online forums in terms of an argumentative activity
argumentative conditions that political online type, I turn to analysing some of the argumentative
discussion forums create for debaters, but without strategies online arguers employ in their debates. In
attempts at making general evaluative claims like general, owing to their open-ended and critical
the ones mentioned above. Instead, employing the character, online forums can be seen as involving
concepts and tools developed within the pragma- some kind of agonistic and sceptical bias, which
dialectical theory of argumentation, I analyse some allows for a truly uninhibited performance of critical
details of online argumentation vis-a-vis the design reactions to others’ argumentation. Bearing this in
of online forums. To do so in a theoretically well- mind, I concentrate on the ways arguers criticise
grounded way, I first endeavour to grasp the issue argumentation of others, rather than on the ways
of the contextuality of argumentation. It is one of they construct their own arguments.
the focal points of various contemporary Pragma-dialectics is a theory well-equipped
approaches to argumentation – such as the ones for a comprehensive study of critical reactions: as an
developed by Walton & Krabbe or Jacobs, Jackson approach based on dialectical and critical principles,
& Aakhus –that the type of context in which actual it conceptualises argumentation in terms of responses
discourse takes place has a significant impact on the to actually advanced (or merely anticipated)
shape and quality of argumentation. Pragma- criticisms. Consequently, the theory recognises that
dialectics conceptualises some fixed the structure and quality of argumentation depends
institutionalised contexts of argumentation, such as directly on the structure and quality of critical
legal disputes of parliamentary debates, in terms of reactions. Moreover, pragma-dialectics provides a
argumentative activity types. Each such type –