Discussants in a public controversy are also players in a social arena. Under what circumstances can means of exerting pressure promote reasonable outcomes, and when are they rather hindrances to their achievement? We discuss the use of persuasion dialogues and negotiation dialogues by those who aim at a reasonable outcome. We show how in a public controversy both types of dialogue can be intertwined. Then, we examine in what ways participants in a public controversy can exert pressure on others. Finally, we discuss whether these means of pressure hinder the achievement of a reasonable outcome, both from the viewpoint of the pursuit of a resolution as well as from that of the pursuit of a compromise. We conclude that exerting pressure need not degenerate into committing a fallacy of either the type argumentum ad baculum or the type argumentum ad carotam.
|Translated title of the contribution||Pressure and Argumentation in Public Controversies|
|Number of pages||13|
|Journal||Tijdschrift voor taalbeheersing|
|Publication status||Published - 2019|
|Event||VIOT 2018: Duurzame Taalbeheersing - Groningen, Netherlands|
Duration: 17-Jan-2018 → 19-Jan-2018
- argumentation, fallacies, negotiation dialogue, persuasion dialogue, pressure, public controversy