Abstract
This paper focuses on eristic in political debate of the forensic, or confrontational, type. First, some findings on the enactment and persuasiveness of hostility in a series of Danish TV-debates 1975–85 are presented, including a list of the clearly hostile debater's characteristics and a subdivision of conspiracy arguments. This presentation serves to illustrate that hostility is less persuasive than argumentation practitioners and theorists tend to assume. Next, the widespread notion of debate as a genre half-way between the quarrel and the critical discussion is challenged in a discussion of Douglas N. Walton's distinction between types of dialogue. It is maintained that the normative model of confrontational debate excludes the quarrel and that debate should not be perceived as second-rate critical discussion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Dieckmann, W.: 1981, Politische Sprache, Politische Kommunikation: Vorträge, Aufsätze, Entwürfe, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992a, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, LEA, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992b, ‘Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum ad Hominem’, Argumentation 6(2), 141-159.
Goffman, E.: 1955, ‘On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction’, Psychiatry 18, 213-231.
Goodnight, G. T.: 1993, ‘A “New Rhetoric” for a “New Dialectic”: Prolegomena to a Responsible Public Argument’, Argumentation 7, 329-342.
Goodnight, G. T. and J. Poulakos: 1981, ‘Conspiracy Rhetoric: From Pragmatism to Fantasy in Public Discourse’, The Western Journal of Speech Communication 45, 299-316.
Govier, T.: 1992, A Practical Study of Argument, third edition, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Infante, D. A., K. C. Hartley, M. M. Martin, M. A. Higgins, S. D. Bruning and G. Hur: 1992, ‘Initiating and Reciprocating Verbal Aggression: Effects on Credibility and Credited Valid Arguments’, Communication Studies 43, 182-190.
Jørgensen, C., C. Kock and L. Rørbech: 1994, Retorik der flytter stemmer. Hvordan man overbeviser i offentlig debat, Gyldendal, Copenhagen.
Klein, J.: 1991, ‘Zur Rhetorik politischer Fernsehdiskussionen’, in G. Ueding (ed.), Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften. Geschichte, System, Praxis als Probleme des ‘Historischen Wörterbuchs der Rhetorik’, Max Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 353-362.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson: 1980, Metaphors We Live By, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mehrley, S and J. C. McCroskey: 1970, ‘Opinionated Statements and Attitude Intensity as Predictors of Attitude Change and Source Credibility’, Speech Monographs 37, 47-52.
Muir, S. A.: 1993, ‘A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 16(4), 277-295.
Walton, D. N.: 1989, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Walton, D. N.: 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation, State University of New York Press, Albany.
Walton, D. N.: 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Zarefsky, D.: 1990, Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Zarefsky, D.: 1992, ‘Spectator Politics and the Revival of Public Argument’, Communication Monographs 59, 411-414.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jørgensen, C. Public Debate – An Act of Hostility?. Argumentation 12, 431–443 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007735127171
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007735127171