Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation in Political Deliberation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed
[Benjamins Current Topics 76] 2015
► pp. 151–176

Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation

Sides, positions, and cases

| ArgLab, Nova Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA-FCSH) | Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on “two sides of an issue” (pro and con). 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 chapter 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.
Keywords: argumentation, deliberation, online discussions, political argument, polylogue
Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.76.07lew
References (54)
Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński. 2011. “Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation.” In Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics, ed. by Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 165–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Applebaum, Anne. 2011. “Bin Laden killed: For a day or two, we’ll feel like the United States of America again.” Available online: [URL] (last consulted 12-03-2015).
Aristotle. 1984. “Rhetoric.” (William Rhys Roberts, trans.).” In The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation, vol. 2, ed. by Jonathan Barnes, 2152–2269. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baym, Nancy K. 1996. “Agreements and disagreements in a computer mediated discussion.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (4): 315–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blair, J. Anthony. 1998. “The limits of the dialogue model of argument.” Argumentation 12 (3): 325–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James. 1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bonevac, Daniel. 2003. “Pragma-dialectics and beyond.” Argumentation 17 (4): 451–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brashers, Dale E., and Renee A. Meyers. 1989. “Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation.” In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Bruce E. Gronbeck, 542–550. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Bruxelles, Sylvie, and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. “Coalitions in polylogues.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 75–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canary, Daniel J., Brent G. Brossmann, and David R. Seibold. 1987. “Argument structures in decision-making groups.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 53 (1): 18–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Thomas B. Carlson. 1982. “Hearers and speech acts.” Language 58 (2): 332–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 2009. Philosophy, politics, democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 2008. “Dichotomies and types of debate.” 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
Davies, Todd, and Seeta P. Gangadharan (eds). 2009. Online deliberation: Design, research and practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Davis, Richard. 1999. The Web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Politics online: Blogs, chatrooms, and discussion groups in American democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin. 1990. “Interstitial argument.” In Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw, 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (Thomas Burger, trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hauben, Michael, and Ronda Hauben. 1997. Netizens: On the history and impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA.: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1986. “‘Con Buenos Chiles’: Talk, targets and teasing in Zincantán.” Text 6 (3): 249–282.Google Scholar
Hill, Kevin A., and John E. Hughes. 1998. Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1972. “Models of the interaction of language and social life.” In Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, ed. by John. J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 1992. “‘Virtual standpoints’ and the pragmatics of conversational argument.” In Argumentation illuminated, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 1980. “Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (3): 251–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacquette, Dale. 2007. “Two sides of any issue.” Argumentation 21 (2): 115–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2004. “Introducing polylogue.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krabbe, Erik C.W. 2006. “Logic and games.” In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. by Peter Houtlosser, and M. Agnès van Rees, 185–198. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. “Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. by Paul Drew, and Anthony J. Wootton, 161–227. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2010a. Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring in reacting critically. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
. 2010b. “Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums.” Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2): 86–105.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation?” In Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frank Zenker, 1–15. CD ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2005. “Arguing in English and French asynchronous online discussion.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (11): 1801–1818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcoccia, Michel. 2004. “On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 115–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. 1986. “Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans).” Human Studies 9: 261–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendelson, Michael. 2002. Many sides: A protagorean approach to the theory, practice, and pedagogy of argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Andrew. 2011. “Bin Laden’s death is a fork in the road.” Available online: [URL] (last consulted 12-03-2015).
Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Richardson, John E., and James Stanyer. 2011. “Reader opinion in the digital age: Tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exercise of political voice.” Journalism 12 (8): 983–1003. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. “A taxonomy of illocutionary acts.” In Language, mind, and knowledge, vol. 7, ed. by Keith Günderson, 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
. 1992. “Conversation.” In (On) Searle on conversation, ed. by John R. Searle, et al., 7–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wenzel, Joseph W. 1979. “Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 16: 83–94.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, Anthony G. 2000. Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wright, Scott. 2012. “Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation.” New Media and Society 14 (2): 244–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Innocenti, Beth
2022. Demanding a halt to metadiscussions. Argumentation 36:3 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.