Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory

Differences of Opinion

Differences of Opinion (DO)

An argumentative discussion may arise as a consequence of disagreement between parties with respect to a standpoint one of the parties puts forth DO the source of any argumentative discussion Any analysis of argumentation must begin by:
- identifying the main difference of opinion - identifying the type of difference of opinion

A difference of opinion arises when:

- one partys standpoint meets with doubt from the other party =an elementary DO+ single + non-mixed - one partys standpoint meets with an opposing standpoint = a mixed DO - if more than one proposition: a multiple DO

Differences of Opinion (DO)

1.1 Explicit vs. Implicit Dos

- a DO arises when two parties do not fully agree on a given standpoint (the second party need not adopt an opposing stdp) > sufficient condition: the other party has doubts or is not sure
(1) Paula: I think schools should spend more time teaching writing skills. Jack: I dont know, Ive never really thought about it.

>the other party may go one step further and reject the standpoint
(2) Paula: I think schools should spend more time teaching writing skills. Dan: Thats ridiculous! More than enough time is spent on that already

Differences of Opinion (DO)

(2) explicit DO: both the standpoint and the rejection of the standpoint are clearly expressed implicit DO: only one party expresses its view esp. in written texts (the other partys skepticism or doubt is anticipated)

(3) Paula: Schools should spend more time teaching writing skills because students these days have a hard time putting their thoughts on paper. Furthermore, our schools spend ridiculously little time on these skills compared to other countries.

Paula anticipates that her stdp will not be readily accepted by everyone bc. she goes to the trouble of giving arguments in support of it (possibility: no DO between her and her reasons)

Differences of Opinion (DO)

1.2 (aside) Positive and Negative Standpoints
Standpoint: the object of argumentation; a verbally expressed position with respect to a proposition, carrying specific commitments and responsibility
Proposition: the content of a statement in which a certain property or quality is ascribed to the persons or things referred to:
> A description of facts or events: (4) Last year ticket sales at movie theaters declined by 3% > A prediction: (5) Knowledge of foreign languages will be an increasingly important requirement in job applications. > A judgment:

(6) Venice is the most beautiful city in Europe.

> An advice: (7) You should brush your teeth with the softest possible toothbrush.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

> with respect to a proposition one may take a positive/negative/neutral position

(8) Proposition: UFOs are a hoax. Dan: I think UFOs are o hoax. Paula: I dont think UFOs are a hoax. Alice: I dont know whether UFOs are a hoax.

Dan has committed himself positively to the proposition that UFOs are a hoax he has adopted a positive stdp w.r.t. the proposition Paula has committed himself negatively to the proposition that UFOs are a hoax she has adopted a negative stdp w.r.t. the proposition Alice has not committed herself to this proposition in any way bc. She is not sure about it she has taken a neutral position

DO two different positions with respect to the proposition contained within a certain statement:
- a positive/negative stdp meets with doubt or neutral position (= the party does not commit to any particular stdp) - a positive/negative stdp meets with the opposing stdp

Differences of Opinion (DO)

1.3 Standpoints and Expressions of Doubt

- a standpoint may relate to any kind of P (P vary in subject matter):

(9) a. I think Baudelaire is the best French poet. b. Dictators are always right-wing. c. It is bad manners to let an old lady stand when you are seated. d. Behaviorism is an outdated psychological theory. e. It seems to me that her hat was green. f. Its not true that an English mile is the same as two kilometres. g. I dont think we should cancel our property insurance policy.
-

Stdps may also vary in scope:

a P can apply to everyone or to certain individuals a P can apply to a whole class or to only part of a class

Standpoints may vary in force: total conviction suggestion

(10) a. Im certain that everyone knows fear. b. I suspect that everyone knows fear. c. It is doubtful that all words are translatable. d. There is no doubt that everybody needs somebody. e. It is beyond doubt that some people can get along very well by themselves.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

Standpoints may address more than one P at once

These propositions are, however, closely connected to each other: their connectedness is usually made overt by combining them into a single complex sentence with the aid of conjunctions such as and or but

(11) a. It is unacceptable to me for you to go into my room without asking, take books out of my bookshelf, and lend them to someone else. b. It seems to me it is not necessary to take vitamin B complex and vitamin C pills at every meal, but that its sufficient to take vitamins A and D once a week and vitamin B complex and vitamin C pills once in a while.

Standpoints may be overtly emphasized:

(12) a. My standpoint is that it really is true that women are more inclined to hysteria than men. b. Like Andrew, I believe that Christianity and pessimism are irreconcilable.

Standpoints (esp. positive stdps.) may not be overtly expressed they are combined with the proposition in one single statement:

(13) Rock concerts are boring.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

Another point of difficulty: differentiating between a negative standpoint and an expression of doubt (= neutral position):
A cautiously formulated negative stdp ~ doubt (politeness indirectness) (quite a common practice people prefer not to make their disagreement too obvious a negative stdp is presented a mere skepticism)

(14) I wonder if thats really such a good idea. > a cautiously formulated negative standpoint or an expression of doubt? !! Even though expressions of doubt may seem to be thinly disguised negative stdps, their consequences are not the same: adopting a negative stdp leads to the obligation to defend it if it is called into question vs. merely expressing doubt does not create any commitment to defend a stdp.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

1.4 Types of Differences of Opinion

Elementary DO: a standpoint meets with doubt:

(15) Type 1: Peter: English men are romantic. (positive standpoint) Alice: Are they? (16) Type 2: Peter: English men are not romantic. (negative standpoint) Alice: Im not so sure about that.
-

An elementary DO involves one P > single DO one (+/-) stdp is put forth by one of the parties and then called into doubt by the other

An elementary DO is non-mixed: only one party is committed to defending a standpoint i.e., the party who has advanced the stdp

Differences of Opinion (DO)

Complex DOs:

Multiple DOs: the standpoint relates to more than one P

A multiple DO arises when sb. brings up two or more issues at the same time:

One give ones stdp on a whole series of matters One states an opinion about a complex theory or about a plan with numerous components

(17) Peter: English men are neither romantic nor spiritual, but at least one can depend on them. Alice: Im not so sure about that.

Mixed DOs: opposing standpoints are adopted with respect to the same P
One party puts forward a positive stdp and the other party rejects it (i.e., adopts a negative stdp) or the other way around

(18) Peter: English men are not romantic. Alice: I dont agree with you.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

Observation: adopting an opposing standpoint always implies doubt or lack of full agreement with respect to the other partys standpoint > if there were no doubt , then there would be full agreemebnt with the stdp and putting forward the opposite stdp would be pointless any complex DO can be broken down into two or more elementary DOs.

(19) Peter: You always react way too fast. Alice: I do not! > Single mixed DO: stdp with respect to one P (= single) + the opposing stdp is advanced (=mixed): it may be analyzed as consisting of two elementary DOs (= single, nonmixed):

Peters positive standpoint w.r.t. P + Alices doubt Alices opposing standpoint + Peters doubt

Differences of Opinion (DO)

Types of DOs:
Single nonmixed (= the elementary form): one P with respect to which one party advances a stdp + doubt) Single mixed (one P + opposing stdp) Multiple nonmixed (several Ps + doubt) Multiple mixed (several Ps + opposing stdp)

Differences of Opinion (DO)

1.5 Main and subordinate Dos

Obs: during a discussion occasioned by a DO, new disagreements may surface as the arguments brought to the fore in defense of a stdp meet with doubt or rejection > in trying to identify a DO, it is therefore important to distinguish between the main DO and any subordinate DOs that may arise during the discussion about the main disagreement. (20) Alice: Excuse me, but I think this soup is spoiled. Waiter: Madam, that is impossible. Alice: But look, theres mold floating around it. Waiter: Thats not mold, those are little pieces of broccoli. Alice: Well, Ive certainly never seen such strange-looking broccoli before. Main DO: single mixed + relates to P This soup is spoiled. Subordinate DO: multiple mixed DO relating to Ps Theres mold floating in the soup. & There are little pieces of broccoli floating in the soup.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

Obs 1: instead of being stated at the outset, the main DO often comes to light gradually, so that what the two parties actually disagree on becomes clear only in the course of discussion Obs 2: it may also happen for the same stdp to be repeated in a somewhat different way e.g., The English are romantic. I mean, most English people are romantic.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

1.6 How to recognize standpoints and doubt

Certain phrases allow the speaker to indicate explicitly that a stdp is being taken:
Explicit standpoints:

(21) a. My standpoint is that socioeconomic and cultural differences play a large role in the results of intelligence tests. b. We are of the opinion that people should not be able to smoke in public places. c. I think that men and women should leave each other alone as much as possible. d. If you ask me, there has not been a real diva since Maria Callas. e. I believe that New York is closer to Philadelphia than to Boston. f. My conclusion is that the economic convergence theory leads to a faulty interpretation of the evolution of the global economy. g. It simply isnt true that engaging in sports is necessarily good for your health. h. Im convinced that girls are better drivers than boys.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

The wording strongly suggests that a standpoint is being taken (but does not provide certainty because it leaves room for a different interpretation):

(22) a. The way I see it, hes only thinking of his own interests. b. In short, television has a bad effect on childrens behaviour. c. I would go so far as to say that passive sentences are always more difficult to understand than active ones. d. What we need to agree on is that nobody will go off and leak news to the press. e. Its nonsense to consider Popper a positivist. f. Its a good idea to take out travel insurance.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

There exists a verbal pattern which facilitates the recognition of a standpoint:

(23) a. People shouldnt want everything all at once. b. All archives ought to be open to the public. c. That measure is unfair. d. You must never let yourself become entirely dependent on another person. e. That you cant sleep is a sign that something is wrong. f. Pompous language should be avoided.

Differences of Opinion (DO)

Inferring Doubt:
Doubt may be more difficult to recognize than a stdp because it often remains implicit. The fact that sb. finds it necessary to defend a stdp is, however, a strong indication that they at least anticipate that their stdp will meet with doubt. It may be that they saw the other person frown. Or perhaps putting themselves in the other persons shoes has led them to expect to meet with doubt. Even though doubt is often not explicitly stated, there are certain expressions from which it may be inferred:

(24) a. I dont know whether Prince Alexander had much respect for his father. b. Im not entirely sure you remembered to turn off the gas. c. Couldnt it be that she shares in the blame as well? d. I dont really understand why those two points of view are irreconcilable. e. Ill have to think about it whether thats a situation where it would be wise to raise interest rates.

Bibliography
Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eemeren, F.H. van (ed.). 2001. Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans, J.A. Blair, Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Berlin/Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter/Foris