Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Argumentation @
Barron: Seminar Paper 2
Welcome
Hopefully you have already clicked on this link and are watching this via YouTube™.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2T2Tb9ZQqs) If not, the writer recommends that readers do so
as a practical and experiential introduction to the content that is to follow in this “paper” and thereby to
the online medium being discussed. However, to provide for an acceptable level of accessibility (and
corresponding blood pressure) for the technologically reluctant, the remainder of this first section is a
transcription of the text used in producing the video clip referenced above.
Hello. My name is Joshua Barron, and it is my privilege to welcome you to the video
introduction of my Seminar Paper. What follows was written as an assignment for Dr. Joyce
Carter’s Theories in Argumentation course (English 5368) at Texas Tech University in the fall of
2008. The requirements for this paper, our collective coursework, and the submissions of my
classmates are all documented online at argtheory.wordpress.com (Carter, et al, 2008).
The aim of this paper is to introduce the realm known as digital media, and to begin an
evaluation of its use as a platform for rhetorical and pragma‐dialectical argumentation.
Specifically, the paper will limit its focus to the online video sharing environment known as
YouTube. Beyond this welcome, this submission is divided into three parts:
1. a survey of the history and current state of the technology and theories referenced in
this paper, including definition of the elements included herein
2. the explanation and application of a framework for evaluating the strength,
acceptability, sufficiency, and validity of one YouTube topic of argumentation, derived
from a variety of fundamental principles and theoretical foundations for pragma‐
dialectic and rhetorical argumentation
3. the writer’s reflection on the potential opportunities and challenges presented by the
space, including recommendations for future research and other involvement of the
scholarly community in shaping this young venue
Introduction: PragmaDialectics and the YouTube Forum
History and Theory
PragmaDialectics
Academically we find experts who specialize in the disciplines of communication and rhetoric, and
others who focus on the formal analysis of logic. In everyday life, however, it is easy to find ourselves
living somewhere in the gray area between these two ends of a spectrum. In the 1970’s, van Eemeren
and Grootendorst began to deliberately investigate and codify this “gray area” for the purpose of
modeling and analyzing critical discussion. It was their stated intent to provide a framework for the
analysis and improvement of argumentative discourse (van Eemeren, 1996). By this framework, their
ultimate goal was to support the effort of those who “accept doubt as an integral part of their way of
Barron: Seminar Paper 3
life and [who] use criticism towards themselves and others in order to solve problems by trial and
error.” (van Eemeren, 1996). Their framework for the analysis and improvement of argumentative
discourse is manifested in the four stages and ten rules which will be utilized in section three of this
paper.
YouTube™
Now a subsidiary of Google, Inc., YouTube, founded in February of 2005, has grown from its humble
internet startup beginnings as a simple video posting site to its current position as the undisputed leader
in online video sharing for the general public (www.youtube.com). Video sharing, the active labeling (or
tagging) and promotion of posted content, was originally introduced in July of 2005, empowering the
end user to painlessly direct others to specific content, regardless of authorship.
(http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=0Qj_byWfaX0). “YouTube became a phenomenon in 2006 for
many reasons, but one in particular: it was both easy and edgy, a rare combination. You can watch
videos on the site without downloading any software or even registering. YouTube is to video browsing
what a Wal‐Mart Supercenter is to shopping: everything is there, and all you have to do is walk in the
door.” (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1570721,00.html)
In July of 2008, comScore Video Metrix reported that YouTube held the lion’s share of online video
postings viewed; their five billion views that month easily outmatched the combined 1.6 billion views of
their competitors. (http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2444). To provide a rough
framework for the current dialogical framework and potential for online video argumentation of the
overall YouTube environment, the following data may be useful. By searching for the keywords “in
response to” and “video response” the YouTube search engine reports anywhere from “about 155,000”
to “about 186,000” related postings.
Scholarly and Mediated Dialogue
Society’s current scholarly dialogue is generally still relegated to the realm of written dialectic, a lasting
artifact paying silent homage to the reign of the printed word. Two relevant points of note on this topic:
• Long the bastion of academe, journal‐centric, peer‐reviewed scholarly discourse is (seemingly)
absolved of visual, presentational, and rhetorical influence. The preeminence of this medium is
diminished significantly with the exponentially increasing accessibility provided by ubiquitous
internet access, especially with the proliferation of open forums of discourse that encourage
multi‐national, genderless, and even politics‐free scholarly argumentation.
(http://www.retrovirology.com/content/3/1/55).
• In evaluating new media as potential vehicles for the promotion of scholarly intellectual
advancement, we would be wise to keep in mind that scholarly discourse has its roots in the
“pre‐paper,” “pre‐computer” personal exchanges of the ancient dialectical methods. These
classic speech acts necessarily involved the rhetorical implications that are intrinsic elements of
live person‐to‐person communication. If these newly evolving media are to be effective venues
for scholarly discourse, they will require the deliberate use and ongoing development of
technology‐aware frameworks, taxonomies, and even rules of engagement.
Barron: Seminar Paper 4
Comparison of YouTube with the Public Forum and Scholarly Discourse
YouTube Forum Scholarly Publications
Broad Public Access via internet Broad Public Access as defined Broad Access through paid
connection by physical presence subscription or library
membership
Asynchronous Synchronous Asynchronous
Multiple simultaneous Singular simultaneous Authors and editors of two
connections between arguers connection between company groups.
members
Structure Defined by the Structure Defined by the Structure Defined by the
Presenter Presenter Discipline
Mostly* Uncensored (*99%) Live performance … Uncensored, Edited extensively
Unplanned
Novice is welcome Novice is scorned Inaccessible, except by
credential and peer‐review.
Especially in the public sphere, where the democratic potential of argument is so important in resolving
public matters, YouTube has the potential to powerfully connect (and thus enable) a wide variety of
arguers who can challenge one another, maintain and explain their own positions, and return the power
of rhetorical deliberation to a place of importance in the global democratic process. Through
deliberative rhetoric in the YouTube space, challenging civic matters, like global warming, for example,
might be engaged by multiple parties in all corners of the earth who have valuable insights to bear on
the matter(Aguayo, 2008). I tout this a potential for the YouTube environment, because the current
state of technology and procedural structure does not yet lend itself to fruitful and productive
arguemtation.
An Example
With hundreds and thousands of controversial topics from which
I might select one example, this video blog (or vlog) has only been
posted a little less than two months, yet it has 4,465 views as of Al Gore Won the Nobel Peace Prize!?!?!
the writing of this report. Two of the viewers have taken the time WTF!!!!!
to create and post their own videos in direct response to the six You didn't win the election...but at least
minute rant posted here by user “hollishillis.” There are another you won something.
367 text comments from users who, as indicated by the general Seriously, how did that happen? Has the
tone of their writing feel fairly strongly about the issue of Mr. world really come to this?
Gore being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Twenty one Regardess of my biast against hating al
individuals have marked it as a “favorite;” further, the YouTube gore...It's a peace prize for f sake.
search engine has automatically selected another 40 video Please, subscribe if you like =] as usual.
postings which more or less take sides with one another around
this idea.
Barron: Seminar Paper 5
To evaluate the argument (and fallacies) presented in the posting, there are a number of items that
would provide some much needed semantic context. First, the author’s claims or warrants need to be
broken apart from one another. Second, reviewers’ responses should be able to link directly to one or
more appropriate claims to help dissect and clarify the lengthy cacophony of argument and fallacy the
author has included in this narrarated video.
YouTube’s current ratings are represented by a simple “thumbs up” and its counterpart, the “thumbs
down” symbol. While these designations can be interpreted as some rough calculation of interlocutor
agreement or disagreement, they are also utilized in a much more “Siskel & Ebert” style format
indicating the reviewer’s affinity for and recommendation of the post. The only other method (beyond
detailed reading of each comment) for determining a reviewer’s position is to search for the words “In
Response to …” The incorrect assumption of this structure, and the search method described is, of
course, that all responses in an argument are diametrically opposed to one another.
Programmatically, consider the possibilities were YouTube to implement an enhanced version of its
commenting module. Such an enhancement could require vlog reviewers to clarify and codify their “In
response to” evaluation in any number of relevant arenas, e.g., overall strength, acceptability,
sufficiency, validity, etc. Moving in that direction, the newly released video annotation functionality of
YouTube allows authors to create timed text‐effects at various points within any video; think of these as
virtual visual aids. Taking this another small step further, visit and consider the simple but useful
structure of debatepedia.com. Even this no‐frills, straightforward pro and con layout would facilitate
the quick and fairly accurate sorting of elements within an argument.
Another possibility for YouTube to consider in the realm of codification and analysis of content is the use
of Weinberger and Fischer’s four “process dimensions,” which facilitate the formal analysis of discourse.
The four dimensions are participation, epistemic, argumentative, and social mode.
Conclusions & Recommendations
If it is true that an argument is not a thing or an object, but rather, as Brockriede asserts, a “perspective
that people take,” then the YouTube environment is certainly ripe with argument. With the exception
of explicit sexual and overtly violent content, it is difficult to find a topic or perspective that isn’t already
posted there. Brockriede further offers that arguments can be found anywhere, provided the following
criteria also exist:
• must have an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or adoption of an
old one.
• a perceived rationale to support that leap
Too little to worry about is a quibble. Too big to entertain is an unacceptable risk.
• a choice among two or more competing claims
Too little choice removes the need to argue; too much choice creates overload of possibilities.
Barron: Seminar Paper 6
• a regulation of uncertainty
Arguers want to reduce uncertainty ... if there is too little uncertainty to regulate they don't need to
solve problems. If it is too difficult, they may be unwilling to argue.
• willingness to risk confrontation of a claim with peers.
• a frame of reference that is shared optimally (Brockriede, 1975).
Among other things, I fail to see these seven main elements included in or supported b y the current
YouTube environment. As a result, what has great potential to be a solid forum for argumentation is
quickly devolved into a cacophony of absurd and invalid rants from a multitude of directions.
Another element that YouTube is missing is a clear structure by which viewers can readily track their
own process of reasoning their way from one set of problematic ideas to the choice of another. As
demonstrated in the example section above, also missing is the ability to rate (one’s own or someone
else’s) response postings as being strongly in agreement or disagreement with the original posting.
Without some standardized human mechanism for measuring the relative position of an arguer’s
position, a viewer can quickly reach information overload when trying to sort, categorize, and analyze
the video postings on any one controversial issue. (McDermott, 2000).
Frank offers the position that, in the “wake” of The New Rhetoric we must recognize the unique and
particular nature of individuals. For argumentation to be relevant, argumentation theory, and actual
arguments between humans must necessarily take a pluralistic view of humanity, and thus become as
diverse as the humans who are so engaged. (Frank, 2004). The benefit of producing an appreciation of
values is limited then, only by the number of unique perspectives that are engaged in the argument.
From ancient Grecian debates until the current age, whether in scholarly publications or live face‐to‐face
disputes, this limitation has generally resulted in a maximum of two individuals or groups who could
logistically be involved in argumentation. As it has done with so many other facets of our culture, the
advent of the internet has provided our world with a virtual web of interconnectivity whose impact has
yet to be fully felt in the realm of argumentation.
Hyper‐connected content is poised to support a paradigm‐shifting change from bilateral discourse to
multilateral discourse. Further, YouTube, a vehicle for hyper‐connected content, is well‐suited to
augment and propel this transition as it enables interlocutors to engage in scholarly dialogue (or multi‐
logue, rather) using a veritable arsenal (or toolbox, if you prefer) of rhetorical strategies that were
foregone for the mobility and the relative temporal permanence of printed page. As the world moves at
a breakneck pace toward the Web 2.0/New Media paradigm, the scholarly argumentation community
has an exciting opportunity (and even a responsibility) to support and guide the global forums of the
world.
Barron: Seminar Paper 7
References
Aguayo, A. & Steffensmeier, T. (2008). Readings on Argumentation. Strata Publishing, 253.
Brockreide, W. (1975). "Where is Argument?" Journal of the American Forensic Association. 9.
Carter, J. & et al. (12‐1‐2008). Argumentation: Theory and Practice. ENGL 5368[Fall 2008]. Texas Tech
University. 12‐1‐2008. Accessible online at www.argtheory.wordpress.com.
Frank, David A. "Argumentation Studies in the Wake of The New Rhetoric." 2004.
McDermott, R. (2000). Why Information Technology Inspired But Cannot Deliver Knowledge
Management. Knowledge and Communities, 21‐35.
vanEemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henekemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation
Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, 274,276‐
280,283‐284,310‐311.
Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in
computer‐supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71‐95.
Just for Fun