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.
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.
Axelrod, Robert
1984The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Blanken, Henk
2013a “Het lot van Loppersum [The fate of Loppersum].” Dagblad van het Noorden (Weekend, p. 6), 18 May 2013.
Blanken, Henk
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.
Blanken, Henk
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.
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.
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.
de Veer, Johan
2013a “NAM geeft gewoon niet thuis [NAM Simply doesn’t Answer].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 22), 12 September 2013.
de Veer, Johan
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.
Gabbay, Dov M., and Woods, John
2001a “Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic.” Synthese 127 (1-2): 161–186.
Gabbay, Dov M., and John Woods
2001b “More on Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic.” Logic Journal of the IGPL 9 (2): 321–339.
Govier, Trudy
1997Social Trust and Human Communities. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
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.
Jacobs, Scott
2000 “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.” Argumentation 14 (3): 261–286.
Jacobs, Scott
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.
Jacobs, Scott
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.
Johnson, Ralph H
2000Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair
1983Logical Self-defense, 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. First ed. 1977.
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.
Lewinski, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus
2014 “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation 28 (2): 161–185. .
Luyendijk, Wubby
2014 “Het beven wordt eerst nog erger [Quaking Getting Worse to Start with].” NRC reader, 1 October 2014. [URL]
Luyendijk, Wubby
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.
Meijer Commission
2013Vertrouwen 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]
NAM
2012Lichte aardbeving bij Sappemeer [Light Earthquake Near Sappemeer]. Press release. [URL]
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]
Sevink, Geert Job
2013De NAM bedrijft gewoon koehandel [The NAM is Just Engaged in Horse-trading]. Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 2), 24 September 2013.
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.
2015 “Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-dialectics.” Argumentation 30 (1): 1–23.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
van Laar, Jan Albert, and Erik C.W. Krabbe
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).
van Laar, Jan Albert, and Erik C.W. Krabbe
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
2012De grond beeft [The Ground Quakes]. Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 10), 1 September 2012.
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.
Walton, Douglas N
1995A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
Walton, Douglas N
2007Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C.W. Krabbe
1995Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Wikipedia
2014Aardgaswinning in Nederland [Natural Gas Extraction in the Netherlands]. Accessed 19 November 2014. [URL]
Wodak, Ruth
2011The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. First published in 2009.
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Castro, Diego
2022. Argumentation in Suboptimal Settings. Argumentation 36:3 ► pp. 393 ff.
Innocenti, Beth
2022. Demanding a halt to metadiscussions. Argumentation 36:3 ► pp. 345 ff.
Krabbe, Erik C. W. & Jan Albert van Laar
2021. Be reasonable!. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 226 ff.
van Laar, Jan Albert & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2018. Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation. Argumentation 32:3 ► pp. 329 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 march 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.