LA APERTURA EXTERNA

The ideal model of critical discussion specifies the different stages that arguers have to pass through and the ensuing dialectical obligations of the parties involved in the

argumentative exchange to arrive at the resolution of a difference of opinion.27 Moreover, the model identifies the different speech acts constituting the argumentative moves

specific to each of the four stages outlined below and the rules that have to be observed to check whether the standpoints are indeed tenable vis-à-vis criticism or doubt.

The ideal model of critical discussion comprises the following four stages. In the confrontation stage, the difference of opinion or standpoints to be defended or refuted (realized, for example, by assertives) and the respective criticisms or doubts are

externalized (communicated through, for example, commissives). In the opening stage, the material (e.g. eliciting concessions) and procedural (distribution of roles, protagonist vs antagonist) starting points relevant to the initiation of the discussion are established. In

aim was to show the extent to which ordinary arguers judge the reasonableness or fallaciousness of moves to be in accordance with the norms stipulated by the rules of the ideal model. The results of these

experiments indicate that the dialectical norms of the ideal model are intersubjectively valid among language users.

27_{From a pragma-dialectical perspective, resolution means that agreement has been reached regarding the}

acceptability of the standpoint, i.e. either the antagonist has been convinced of or the protagonist has withdrawn the standpoint as it failed to withstand the other party’s criticisms.

59

the argumentation stage, arguments in support of standpoints are advanced and tested. Finally, in the concluding stage, the outcome of the discussion is formulated. This means that either the antagonist retracts his criticism, or the protagonist withdraws her

standpoints as they fail to withstand the critical responses put forward by the antagonist.

Thus, the ideal model of critical discussion serves as a heuristic and analytic tool based on which an argumentative activity is reconstructed, analysed, and evaluated. As an

evaluative tool, the model of critical discussion provides a platform against which reasons given in support of claims can be assessed as reasonable or fallacious. Assessment is the result of checking the extent to which argumentative moves and arguments adduced conform with the rules of critical discussion. The ideal model of critical discussion encompasses ten rules that form a code of conduct (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 135–157), whereby arguers’ adherence to these rules leads to a reasonable resolution of a disagreement. The ten rules of the code of conduct are:

• Rule 1 (Freedom Rule): Discussants may not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from calling standpoints into question.

• Rule 2 (Obligation to Defend Rule): Discussants who advance a standpoint may not refuse to defend this standpoint when requested to do so.

• Rule 3 (Standpoint Rule): Attacks on standpoints may not bear on a standpoint that has not actually been put forward by the other party.

• Rule 4 (Relevance Rule): Standpoints may not be defended by non-argumentation or argumentation that is not relevant to the standpoint.

• Rule 5 (Unexpressed Premise Rule): Discussants may not falsely attribute unexpressed premises to the other party, nor disown responsibility for their own unexpressed premises.

60

• Rule 6 (Starting Point Rule): Discussants may not falsely present something as an accepted starting point or falsely deny that something is an accepted starting point.

• Rule 7 (Validity Rule): Reasoning that is in an argumentation explicitly and fully expressed may not be invalid in a logical sense.

• Rule 8 (Argument Scheme Rule): Standpoints defended by argumentation that is not explicitly and fully expressed may not be regarded as conclusively defended by such argumentation unless the defence takes place by means of appropriate argument schemes that are applied correctly.

• Rule 9 (Concluding Rule): Inconclusive defences of standpoints may not lead to maintaining these standpoints and conclusive defences of standpoints may not lead to maintaining expressions of doubt concerning these standpoints.

• Rule 10 (Language Use Rule): Discussants may not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they may not deliberately misinterpret the other party’s formulations. (van Eemeren et al., 2014, p. 542–544)

The ideal model of critical discussion will form the descriptive and normative framework for the reconstruction, analysis, and evaluation of Nasrallah’s argumentative discourse. Based on this model, in some cases, Nasrallah’s argumentative moves can be judged as reasonable if they adhere to the rules of critical discussion and, thus, allow the critical testing of standpoints. In other instances, Nasrallah’s moves may hinder the critical testing of standpoints, e.g. by silencing opponents through casting doubt on their

expertise or threatening them (ad hominem and ad baculum, respectively). These moves are said to be fallacious because they represent a violation of the first rule of the ideal model of critical discussion – the Freedom Rule;hence, they obstruct the critical testing of standpoints.28 During an argumentative exchange, as van Eemeren and Houtlosser

61

(2000) elucidate, participants are committed to simultaneously achieving dialectical (reasonable) aims by complying with the rules of critical discussion to resolve disagreements and rhetorical aims, i.e. to have their standpoints accepted, and the perlocutionary effects of their speech acts serve their own strategic interests. To balance the attainment of both goals is an instance of strategic manoeuvring.