Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases
Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1):151-177 (2013)
Abstract
Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on “two sides of an issue”. However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this paper is to shed extra light on such “polylogical” clash of opinions in online deliberation, by examining the multi-layered participation in actual online debates. The examples are drawn from the readers’ discussions on Osama bin Laden’s killing in online versions of two British newspapers: The Guardian and The Telegraph. As a result of the analysis, a distinction between sides, positions, and cases in argumentative deliberation is proposed.My notes
Similar books and articles
Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.Marcin Lewiński & Mark Aakhus - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):161-185.
Participation and Parties: The Positions of Party Congress Delegates.Francesco Raniolo - 2011 - Polis: Research and studies on Italian society and politics 25 (2):235-262.
Worldwide deliberation and public use of reason online.May Thorseth - 2006 - Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4):243-252.
Coalition Governments, Party Switching, and the Rise and Decline of Parties: Changing Japanese Party Politics since 1993.Junko Kato & Yuto Kannon - 2008 - Japanese Journal of Political Science 9 (3):341-365.
Recent naturalistic dualisms.William G. Lycan - 2007 - In E. Meyers, R. Styers & A. Lange (eds.), Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World. Brill Academic Publishers.
Debating the new religion of eugenics: Catholic and anglican positions in early twentieth-century Britain.Frederick Hale - 2011 - Heythrop Journal 52 (3):445-457.
Policy and Party Competition in Japan after the Election of 2000.Junko Kato & Michael Laver - 2003 - Japanese Journal of Political Science 4 (1):121-133.
Normative autonomy and normative co-ordination: Declarative power, representation, and mandate. [REVIEW]Jonathan Gelati, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor & Guido Governatori - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (1-2):53-81.
Before the Law.Russell A. Berman - 2012 - Telos: Critical Theory of the Contemporary 2012 (160):3-7.
Estimating party policy positions: Japan in comparative context.Michael Laver & Kenneth Benoit - 2005 - Japanese Journal of Political Science 6 (2):187-209.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-12-15
Downloads
19 (#588,967)
6 months
1 (#448,551)
2013-12-15
Downloads
19 (#588,967)
6 months
1 (#448,551)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.Marcin Lewiński & Mark Aakhus - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):161-185.
Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.Mark Aakhus & Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):179-207.
Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies.Marcin Lewiński - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218.