Argumentation and Conflict Resolution

1. JUSTIFICATION
The subject of argument and conflict resolution deals with studying international argumentation as a
strategy for conflict resolution, negotiation processes, international communication, making decisions
and many other international business scenarios. Within the vast argumentation studies framework,
three main argumentation approaches are described as the core set of conceptions to understand
argumentation. These three perspectives (rhetorical, dialectical and logical) will serve as the basis to
get a clear idea of how arguments work. In addition, analyzing arguments constitutes a great element
for the purpose of understanding and implementing argumentation in international business.

2. GENERAL OBJECTIVES (Learning Outcomes)
The main aims of this course are for students:
• To learn how to develop linguistic tools in communication in order to be able to integrate
argumentation skills into their role as international negotiators.
• To distinguish key moments and key strategic components of an argument.
• To develop a critique attitude analyzing written and spoken arguments to help with decision making
processes.
• To contribute to the student’s ability for appropriate description and intervention in the argumentative
resolution of a conflict.

WEEK 1: COURSE INTRODUCTION
Specific Objectives:
• To present the contents of the syllabus, key concepts, readings methodology, rules of the course,
and assessment.
Readings: None
WEEK 2: THREE ARGUMENTATION APPROACHES
Specific Objectives:
• Distinguishing the three most important argumentation approaches (Rhetoric, Dialectics, Logic).
• Identifying the elements of each argumentation perspective.
Key Study Points:
• What is Argumentation?
• What is an Argument?
• Purpose, scope and focus, situation, resources, and standard roles for:
- The Rhetorical perspective
- The Dialectical perspective
- The Logical perspective
Compulsory Reading:
Wenzel, J.W. (2006). Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Logic. In R. Trapp & J.
Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9-26). New
York: International Debate Education Association Press.
Available at:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PROGZCLbmlMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Perspectives+on+ar
gumentation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uL_FVOX0EcWVNqymgtgP&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Per
spectives%20on%20argumentation&f=false
WEEK 3: WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT? THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH
4/3
Specific Objectives:
• To define what an argument is.
• To identify the different components of an argument.
• To identify different kinds of arguments.
• To ascertain the difference between “argument” and “explanation”.
Key Study Points:
• Argument characteristics
• Arguments and explanations
• Two types of fallacies
• Defining arguments from the Pragmatic Approach
Compulsory Reading:
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Incorporated. Chapter 1: What is an Argument? (pp. 3-41).
Available at Centro Cultural Biblioteca Luis Echavarría Villegas
WEEK 4: POLITICAL DISCOURSE
Specific Objectives:
• Primary argumentation
• Secondary or supportive arguments
• Political speech analysis: populism, parallelism, rethoric.
Key Study Points:
• Main arguments
• Supporting claims
• Pragmatics
Compulsory Reading:
None.
WEEK 5: FALLACIES
Specific Objectives:
• To recognise fallacies as a kind of argument within the Dialectical Approach.
• To identify different types of fallacies as argumentative tactics.
Key Study Points:
• What is a fallacy?
• Different types of fallacies
• Different types of appeals
• Relation between fallacies and arguing
Compulsory Reading:
Fogelin, R. J., Duggan, T.J. (1987). Fallacies. Argumentation, 1 (3), pp. 255-262.
E-copy available on EAFIT Interactiva
Evaluating Arguments: Distinguishing between Reasonable and Fallacious Tactics.
5/3
Available at http://writingcenter.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/evaluatingarguments.pdf
WEEKS 6-7: PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL APPROACH
Specific Objectives:
• To establish rules for a critical discussion
• To identify the stages in a Conflict Resolution process
Key Study Points:
• The Pragma-Dialectical Approach
• The four metatheoretical premises (externalization, socialization, functionalization, dilalectification)
• Fallacies and the rules for critical discussion
• Violations of rules for critical discussion
Compulsory Reading:
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1995). The Pragma-Dilectical Approach to Fallacies. In H. V.
Hansen, & R. C. Pinto (Eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp.130-145).
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.
Available at http://www.ditext.com/eemeren/pd
WEEK 8: WORKSHOP / FORUM
Specific Objectives:
• To debate a set issue following the procedures established by the Pragma-Dialectical approach
• To simulate a conflict resolution process in which an issue is questioned and agreed upon by all
parties
• To develop argumentative skills and a public discourse using sound and effective arguments
Key Study Points:
• Arguments
• Fallacies
• The Pragma-Dialectical approach
Compulsory Reading:
None.
WEEK 9: BANK HOLIDAY
WEEK 10: THE RHETORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Specific Objectives:
• To identify the main elements relating to the Rhetorical perspective
• To recognise the purpose of argumentation within the Rhetorical perspective
• To establish the role of emotion, context, and audiences within argumentation
Key study points:
6/3
• Rhetorical model of Argumentation
• Reason versus emotion
• Emotional appeals
• Ethos / Pathos / Ethotic arguments
• “Context” and its main components (locality, background, arguer, expression)
• Audiences and the “universal audience”
Compulsory Reading:
Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany: State University of
New York. Chapter 3: Contexts and Arguments: An Introduction to the Rhetorical Perspective (pp. 69-
93)
Available at Centro Cultural Biblioteca Luis Echavarría Villegas
WEEK 11: ANALYSIS OF A SPEECH (RHETORICAL APPROACH)
Specific Objectives:
• To analyse a written or verbal speech through the Rhetorical perspective
• To identify the main argument in a speech
• To pinpoint the supporting claims of an argument in a speech
Key Study Points:
• Main arguments
• Supporting claims
• Emotional appeals
• Rhetoric
Compulsory Reading:
None.
WEEK 12: HOLY WEEK BREAK
WEEKS 13 – 16: ORAL SPEECHES (WEEK 15: BANK HOLIDAY)
Specific Objectives:
• To define a position on a controversial issue, either arguing for or against it
• To present a coherent, sound, and well-structure case which supports a defined position on a
burning issue
• To implement the Rhetorical approach within an oral discourse in order to persuade an audience
Key Study Points:
• Main arguments
• Supporting claims
• Rhetoric
Compulsory Reading:
None.
7/3
WEEK 17: ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES (LOGICAL APPROACH)
Specific Objectives:
• To identify different types of argumentation schemes and their corresponding functions.
• To identify the main elements relating to the Logical perspective.
Key Study points:
• The Logical perspective
• Different kinds of arguments in everyday life
• Functions of common argument types
• Arguments as syllogisms
Compulsory Reading
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. Chapter 3: The Argumentation Schemes (pp. 46-110)
Available at Centro Cultural Biblioteca Luis Echavarría Villegas

 

 

Evaluation:

Speech 10 %

Workshop 10 %

Oral presentation 15 %

Case study - Harvard database 15 %

Simulation - discussion around negotiation 20 %

Final evaluation - Paper and Debate 30 %

 

Bibliography:

Wenzel, J.W. (2006). Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Logic. In

R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of

Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9-26). New York: International Debate Education Association

Press.

Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University

of Toronto Press Incorporated. Chapter 1: What is an Argument? (pp. 3-41).

Fogelin, R. J., Duggan, T.J. (1987). Fallacies. Argumentation, 1 (3), pp. 255-262.

Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1995). The Pragma-Dilectical Approach to

Fallacies. In H. V. Hansen, & R. C. Pinto (Eds), Fallacies: Classical and

Contemporary Readings (pp.130-145). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.

Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany:

State University of New York. Chapter 3: Contexts and Arguments: An Introduction

to the Rhetorical Perspective (pp. 69-93).

Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning.

Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates. Chapter 3: The Argumentation Schemes (pp. 46-110)

Watts, I. (1995). Kinds of Arguments and the Doctrine of Sophisms. In H. V. Hansen,

& R. C. Pinto (Eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp.57-66).

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.