Lecture 2: Critical discussions and other types of dialogue

Question 1

What is critical discussion?

Answer 1

It is a persuasion dialogue (an ideal procedure), which not only resolves the conflict of opinions, but resolves it rationally, in favour of the position which is supported by better arguments, achieved by systematically eliminating the factors that may prevent this outcome

Question 2

Critical discussion is characterised in terms of…

Answer 2

10 dialectical rules

Question 3

Rule 1 of critical discussion

Answer 3

Parties must not prevent each other from advancing a position/casting doubt on each other’s viewpoints

Question 4

Rule 2 of critical discussion

Answer 4

Whoever advances a viewpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so

Question 5

Rule 3 of critical discussion

Answer 5

An attack on a viewpoint must represent the viewpoint that has really been advanced by that protagonist (főszereplő)

Question 6

Rule 4 of critical discussion

Answer 6

A viewpoint may be defended/attacked only by advancing argumentation that is relevant to this viewpoint

Question 7

What is ignoratio elenchi?

Answer 7

One of the many fallacies (tévedés) of irrelevance: a fallacy of offering an argument for a conclusion that has nothing to do with the issue under discussion

Question 8

Rule 5 of critical discussion

Answer 8

A person can be held responsible for the unstated premises she leaves implicit in her argument

Question 9

Rule 6 of critical discussion

Answer 9

A viewpoint is regarded as conclusively defended only if the defense takes place by means of argumentation based on premises accepted by the other party

Question 10

Rule 7 of critical discussion

Answer 10

A viewpoint is regarded as conclusively defended only if the defense takes place by means of arguments in which an argumentation scheme is correctly applied

Question 11

Rule 8 of critical discussion

Answer 11

A viewpoint is regarded as conclusively defended only if supported by a chain of argumentation meeting the requirements of rules 6 and 7 and if the unstated premises in the chain of argumentation are accepted by the other party

Question 12

Rule 9 of critical discussion

Answer 12

A failed defense must result in the proponent withdrawing her thesis, and a successful defense must result in the respondent withdrawing her doubt about the proponent’s thesis

Question 13

Rule 10 of critical discussion

Answer 13

Formulations of questions and arguments must not be obscure (homályos), excessively vague (bizonytalan), confusingly ambiguous (kétértelmű) and must be interpreted as accurately as possible

Question 14

Different dialogue types have…

Answer 14

Different rules

Question 15

What is inquiry?

Answer 15

Aims at settling an issue definitively and not merely at persuading one’s opponent, premises don’t need to be accepted by participants, they have to be established facts (retraction is rare- in contrast with persuasion dialogue), it involves a good deal of collaboration and fight may be missing altogether

Question 16

What is negotiation?

Answer 16

It starts out from conflicting interests (not conflicting views) and serves to achieve a settlement which is acceptable to both parties, involves both fight and collaboration in varying proportions

Question 17

What does negotiation rather not include?

Answer 17

Argumentation, bc much of it may indicate that the negotiation is not going well (asking questions to to explore the other party’s interests and suggesting solutions/making offers is sufficient)

Question 18

2 moves negotiations tolerate in contrast to persuasion dialogue

Answer 18

Threats, compromises

Question 19

What is deliberation?

Answer 19

Aims at deciding the best course of action for all parties, has elements of both persuasion dialogue (which course of action offers the best chance of achieving the goal/has the best consequences) and negotiations (if interests of parties diverge), uses a lot of certain argument schemes (argument from consequences), emotional appeal arguments (fear, threat, pity)

Question 20

What is eristic dialogue/quarrel?

Answer 20

Starts from personal conflict, it contains more fight and less collaboration than persuasion dialogue, participants aim at verbally hitting out the opponent, may reveal deeper basis of the conflict, abusive talk in it is frequent, but usually doesn’t contain arguments (if does, they serve to expose the intellectual/moral weakness of other party)

Question 21

Why is it worth being familiar with the different dialogue types?

Answer 21

1. They help to achieve communicative objectives
2. Help with formulating your goals, choose the appropriate type, and act accordingly
3. Identify what type of dialogue the other party is conducting and try to make them conduct the type you need

Question 22

When is changing the type of dialogue legitimate?

Answer 22

1. If participants have completed the given type of dialogue, they can move over to the next task
2. If participants temporarily switch into another type when the goal of the dialogue is needed to be realised
3. When the type of dialogue the participants switched to is more suitable for resolving the conflict they have

Question 23

When is changing the type of dialogue illicit?

Answer 23

If it is merely used to gain upper hand (party running out of arguments in persuasion dialogue starts to quarrel) or suggests compromise (called a manipulating type of dialogue)

Question 24

According to some, which arguments are considered irrelevant/wrong and why?

Answer 24

Emotional appeals (fear, pity), bc they are irrelevant for the conclusion, and switch off rational consideration and engage our emotions (essentially manipulative)

Question 25

Are emotional appeals always irrelevant?

Answer 25

They can’t be used to establish facts, but as a dialogue it can aim at selecting the right action/defending our interests/conclude critical investigations

Question 26

An utterance is dialectically relevant if…

Answer 26

It’s appropriate in given type of dialogue

Question 27

In persuasion dialogue, dialectical relevance is…

Answer 27

Probative relevance (relevance for truth of a claim)

Question 28

In other types of dialogue, dialectical relevance is…

Answer 28

Measured by other standards of relevance

Question 29

Dialectical relevance is a function of…

Answer 29

Local and institutional conditions

Question 29

Are emotional appeals always essentially manipulative compared to reason?

Answer 29

Emotions can switch off rational consideration and tend to deceive, but reason doesn’t always give good advice either

Question 30

Arguments are fallacious if…

Answer 30

They are irrelevant, and if their persuasive power derives solely from their playing on our emotions (advice: be on your guard when coming across such arguments, ask whether they really offer good reason to act as suggested)

Question 31

Rules for conducting effective meetings to keep irrelevance away

Answer 31

1. Prepare agenda carefully, ask for suggestions for agenda points
2. Circulate the agenda and the background materials
3. Invite only those who are needed
4. Set time frames
5. Control side issues (if an issue not on the agenda keeps being raised, make it an agenda point for next meeting)
6. Don’t move on to the next agenda point too fast