Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement
Edited by Jennifer Schumann and Steve Oswald
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1] 2024
► pp. 89–110

“So I know how to do this”

The prototypical argumentative pattern in U.S.A. presidential debates

ORCID logo | University of Amsterdam , The Netherlands

Debates are important events during presidential elections in the U.S.A. Candidates are juxtaposed and engage with each other on a wide range of issues. This poses the question how disagreement between the two candidates and the public is managed. The aim of this paper is to articulate the prototypical argumentative pattern used by candidates which shows that to defend that the public should vote for them, candidates recurringly make three central claims. Specifically, they claim that some political action has to happen, they will do that action if elected, while their opponent will not. This basic argument scheme – which could be referred to as campaign promise argumentation – is further expanded by candidates by responding to six distinct critical questions, resulting in a prototypical argumentative pattern designed to deal with potential criticisms against a bid to become president.

Keywords: political argumentation, election debates, U.S.A. presidential debates, prototypical argumentative patterns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.Theoretical framework
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Defending the need for political action
    • 4.2Defending one’s own commitment to execute a proposed policy
    • 4.3Defending the differentiating relevance of the policy proposal
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 7 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00098.rei
References
Andone, Corina
2015 “Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability.” Argumentation 29 (1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “The Role of Pragmatic and Majority Argumentation in Reports of European Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry.” In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 53–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andone, Corina, and José Alfonso Lomelí Hernández
2019 “Scientific Arguments in Policy-Making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (2): 195–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Jeffery J.
1968 “The Counterfeit Debates.” In The Great Debates. Background – Perspective – Effects, ed. by Sidney Kraus, 142–150. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
Benoit, William L., and William T. Wells
1996 Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack
1999 “Questions, Answers, and the Organization of Talk in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Fundamental Considerations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 32 (3): 213–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitzer, Lloyd F., and Theodore Rueter
1980 Carter vs. Ford: The Counterfeit Debates of 1976. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Budzyńska-Daca, Agniezska, and Renata Botwina
2015 “Pre-Election TV Debates – Persuasive Games between Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 39–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Diana B., Eric Morris, and Shawna Smith
2001 “The Influence of Format and Questions on Candidates’ Strategic Argument Choices in the 2000 Presidential Debates.” American Behavioral Scientist 44 (12): 2196–2218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Diana Prentice, Charles Howard, Susan Stanfield, and Larry Reynolds
1991 “The Effects of Presidential Debate Formats on Clash: A Comparative Analysis.” Argumentation and Advocacy 27 (3): 126–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Argumentative Patterns Viewed from a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.” In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 7–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Tjark Kruiger
2015 “Identifying Argumentation Schemes.” In Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 703–712. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellsworth, John W.
1965 “Rationality and Campaigning: A Content Analysis of the 1960 Presidential Campaign Debates.” Western Political Quarterly 18 (4): 794–802. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garssen, Bart
2017 “The Role of Pragmatic Problem-Solving Argumentation in Plenary Debate in the European Parliament.” In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 31–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen
1994 “Actions, Speech Acts, Linguistically Mediated Interactions and the Lifeworld.” In Philosophical Problems Today, ed. by Guttorm Fløistad, 45–74. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hart, Roderick P., and Sharon E. Jarvis
1997 “Political Debate: Forms, Styles, and Media.” American Behavioral Scientist 40 (8): 1095–1122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihnen Jory, Constanza
2012 Pragmatic Argumentation in Law-Making Debates. Instruments for the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation at the Second Reading of the British Parliament. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Lamoureux, Elizabeth R., Heather S. Entrekin, and Mitchell S. McKinney
1994 “Debating the Debates.” In The 1992 Presidential Debates in Focus, ed. by Diana B. Carlin and Mitchell S. McKinney, 55–67. Praeger.Google Scholar
Lanoue, David J., and Peter Richard Schrott
1991 The Joint Press Conference. The History, Impact, and Prospects of American Presidential Debates. Praeger.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal
2013 Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. Verso Books.Google Scholar
Neagu, Maria-Ionela
2015 “Political Debates: Deliberation, Persuasion, and Ethos Construction.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 85–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [URL]. DOI logo
Rowland, Robert C.
1986 “The Substance of the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debate.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 51 (2): 142–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “The First 2012 Presidential Campaign Debate: The Decline of Reason in Presidential Debates.” Communication Studies 64 (5): 528–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Implicit Standards of Public Argument in Presidential Debates: What the 2016 Debates Reveal about Public Deliberation.” Argumentation and Advocacy 54 (1–2): 76–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagemans, Jean H. M.
2023 “How to Identify an Argument Type? On the Hermeneutics of Persuasive Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 2031: 117–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiler, Michael
1989 “The 1988 Electoral Debates and Debate Theory.” The Journal of the American Forensic Association 25 (4): 214–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar