Dutilh Novaes Catarina
Department of Philosophy, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arché, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland, UK.
Topoi (Dordr). 2021;40(5):873-886. doi: 10.1007/s11245-020-09736-9. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
Since at least the 1980s, the role of adversariality in argumentation has been extensively discussed within different domains. Prima facie, there seem to be two extreme positions on this issue: argumentation should (ideally at least) be adversarial, as we should always aim for cooperative argumentative engagement; argumentation should be and in fact is adversarial, given that adversariality (when suitably conceptualized) is an intrinsic property of argumentation. I here defend the view that specific instances of argumentation are (and should be) adversarial or cooperative degrees. What determines whether an argumentative situation should be primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative are contextual features and background conditions external to the argumentative situation itself, in particular the extent to which the parties involved have prior conflicting or else convergent interests. To further develop this claim, I consider three that are frequently associated with argumentation: the epistemic , the consensus-building , and the conflict management . I start with a brief discussion of the concepts of adversariality, cooperation, and conflict in general. I then sketch the main lines of the debates in the recent literature on adversariality in argumentation. Next, I discuss the three of argumentation listed above in turn, emphasizing the roles of adversariality and cooperation for each of them.
至少自20世纪80年代以来，论证中的对抗性作用已在不同领域得到广泛讨论。乍一看，在这个问题上似乎存在两种极端立场：论证应该（至少在理想情况下）具有对抗性，因为我们应该始终致力于合作性的论证参与；论证应该而且实际上就是对抗性的，因为对抗性（当适当地概念化时）是论证的固有属性。我在此捍卫这样一种观点，即论证的具体实例具有（并且应该具有）不同程度的对抗性或合作性。决定一个论证情境应该主要是对抗性的还是主要是合作性的，是论证情境本身之外的情境特征和背景条件，特别是所涉及的各方事先存在冲突或趋同利益的程度。为了进一步阐述这一主张，我考虑了通常与论证相关的三个目标：认知目标、建立共识目标和冲突管理目标。我首先简要讨论一下对抗性、合作性和冲突的一般概念。然后我概述近期文献中关于论证中对抗性的辩论的主要思路。接下来，我依次讨论上述论证的三个目标，强调对抗性和合作性对每个目标的作用。
