Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 5:3 (2016) ► pp.315–347

Fair and unfair strategies in public controversies

| University of Groningen
Contemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about the ways in which, in the context of a public controversy, arguers should ideally present their arguments and criticize those of their opponents. We also know that in practice not all works out according to the ideal patterns: numerous kinds of derailments (fallacies) are an object of study for argumentation theorists. But how about the use of unfair strategies vis-à-vis one’s opponents? What if it is not a matter of occasional derailments but of one party’s systematic refusal to take other parties seriously? What if one party continually forgoes any form of critical testing and instead resorts to threats or blackmail? Can this be countered by the tools of reason? Or should one pay one’s opponent back in the same coin? To gain some grasp of these issues, we describe a number of strategies used in the public controversy about induced earthquakes in Groningen. We check whether these strategies are fair, i.e. balanced, transparent, and tolerant. We also investigate the effects of the choice for a particular kind of strategy. It appears that, in circumstances, choosing a fair strategy may be detrimental for resolving the controversy and choosing an unfair one beneficial. Following up ideas from social psychology and political science, we formulate some guidelines for the choice of strategies. At the end, we stress the importance — especially for those whose opinions carry little weight — of having a society in which the knowledge and skills needed for assessing the fairness of strategies are widespread.
Keywords: argumentation theory, strategy, (un)fairness, public controversy, fallacy
Published online: 27 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.3.04kra
References (44)
Amgoud, Leila, and Henri Prade. 2006. “Formal Handling of Threats and Rewards in a Negotiation Dialogue.” In Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 26, 2005: Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. by Simon Parsons, Nicolas Maudet, Pavlos Moraitis, and Iyad Rahwan, 88–103. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Blanken, Henk. 2013a. “Het lot van Loppersum [The fate of Loppersum].” Dagblad van het Noorden (Weekend, p. 6), 18 May 2013.Google Scholar
. 2013b. “We zitten allemaal in een dooie hoek hier [We Are All in a Blind Spot Over Here].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 4), 2 November 2013.Google Scholar
. 2013c. “‘Ze zuigen het leeg en doen niets terug’ [‘They’re Sucking it Out and Do Nothing in Return’] Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 6), 9 April 2013.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Morton. 2014. “Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict.” In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, 3rd ed. ed. by Peter T. Coleman, Morton Deutsch, and Eric C. Marcus, 3–28. Somerset, NJ: John Wiley. First edition: San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass, 2000.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 2008. “Dichotomies and Types of Debates.” In Controversy, and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Veer, Johan. 2013a. “NAM geeft gewoon niet thuis [NAM Simply doesn’t Answer].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 22), 12 September 2013.Google Scholar
. 2013b. “Mensen worden ongeduldig en steeds bozer [People are Getting Impatient and More and More Angry].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 2), 5 December 2013.Google Scholar
Gabbay, Dov M., and Woods, John. 2001a. “Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic.” Synthese 127 (1-2): 161–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabbay, Dov M., and John Woods. 2001b. “More on Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic.” Logic Journal of the IGPL 9 (2): 321–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 1997. Social Trust and Human Communities. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott. 1999. “Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics.” In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 397–403. Amsterdam: SIC SAT.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.” Argumentation 14 (3): 261–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Messages, Functional Contexts, and Categories of Fallacy: Some Dialectical and Rhetorical Considerations.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis ( Argumentation library 6), ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 119–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Design in Argumentation. In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues ( Argumentation library 14), ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen.), 55–78. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H. 2000. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 1983. Logical Self-defense, 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. First ed. 1977.Google Scholar
Krabbe, Erik C.W. 2003. “Metadialogues.” In Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation ( Argumentation library 8), ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 83–90. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewinski, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus. 2014. “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation 28 (2): 161–185. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Luyendijk, Wubby. 2014. “Het beven wordt eerst nog erger [Quaking Getting Worse to Start with].” NRC reader, 1 October 2014. <[URL]>Google Scholar
. 2015. “Al een jaar belooft de NAM sommetjes over de risico’s [For a Year now NAM has been Promising to do Sums about the Risks].” NRC-Handelsblad, 27 January 2015.Google Scholar
Meijer Commission. 2013. Vertrouwen in een duurzame toekomst: Een stevig perspectief voor Noord-Oost Groningen: Eindadvies van de Commissie Duurzame Toekomst Noord-Oost Groningen [Trust in a Sustainable Future: A Solid Perspective for Northeast Groningen: Final Recommendations of the Committee Sustainable Future Northeast Groningen]. <[URL]>Google Scholar
NAM. 2012. Lichte aardbeving bij Sappemeer [Light Earthquake Near Sappemeer]. Press release. <[URL]>Google Scholar
RTV Noord. 2015. ‘VVD-kamerlid bespreekt gastactiek telefonisch in de trein.’ [Liberal MP Discusses Gas Tactics on Telephone in Train] RTV Noord (website), 17 January 2015. <[URL] >Google Scholar
Sevink, Geert Job. 2013. De NAM bedrijft gewoon koehandel [The NAM is Just Engaged in Horse-trading]. Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 2), 24 September 2013.Google Scholar
van Dalen, Roelof. 2013. ”In Westen denken ze dat beving kermisattractie is [In the West they Think a Quake is a Fairground Attraction].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 4), 2 November 2013.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-dialectics.” Argumentation 30 (1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, and Bert Meuffels. 2012. ”Effectiveness through Reasonableness: Preliminary Steps to Pragma-dialectical Effectiveness Research.” Argumentation 26 (1): 33–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2002.” Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse: A Delicate Balance.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis ( Argumentation library 6), ed by. Frans H. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. ”Countering Fallacious Moves.” Argumentation 21 (3): 243–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Laar, Jan Albert, and Erik C.W. Krabbe. 2016a. “Eerlijke en oneerlijke strategieën in maatschappelijke discussies [Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies].” In De macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen [The Power of Language: Research in Speech Communication in The Netherlands and Flanders], ed. by Dorien Van De Mieroop, Lieven Buysse, Roel Coesemans en Paul Gillaerts, 131–143. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
. 2016b. ”Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies: The Case of Induced Earthquakes.” In Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015, Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewinski, 343–362. London: College Publications (Studies in Logic and Argumentation 62).Google Scholar
. 2016c. ”Splitting a Difference of Opinion.” In Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) , May 18-21, 2016, ed. by Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista. Windsor, ON: OSSA. To be published.
van Sluis, Bas. 2012. De grond beeft [The Ground Quakes]. Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 10), 1 September 2012.Google Scholar
van Veenen, Jelle, and Henry Prakken. 2006. “A Protocol for Arguing About Rejections in Negotiation.” In Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 26, 2005: Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. by Simon Parsons, Nicolas Maudet, Pavlos Moraitis, and Iyad Rahwan (Eds.) 138–153. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1995. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wikipedia. 2014. Aardgaswinning in Nederland [Natural Gas Extraction in the Netherlands]. Accessed 19 November 2014. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2011. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. First published in 2009.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Castro, Diego
2022. Argumentation in Suboptimal Settings. Argumentation 36:3 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo
Innocenti, Beth
2022. Demanding a halt to metadiscussions. Argumentation 36:3 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo
Krabbe, Erik C. W. & Jan Albert van Laar
2021. Be reasonable!. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
van Laar, Jan Albert & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2018. Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation. Argumentation 32:3 ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.