Faculty Research and Publications

Permanent URI for this community

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Angelic devil’s advocates and the forms of adversariality
(Springer, 2021) Stevens, Katharina; Cohen, Daniel
Is argumentation essentially adversarial? The concept of a devil's advocate—a cooperative arguer who assumes the role of an opponent for the sake of the argument—serves as a lens to bring into clearer focus the ways that adversarial arguers can be virtuous and adversariality itself can contribute to argumentation's goals. It also shows the different ways arguments can be adversarial and the different ways that argumentation can be said to be "essentially" adversarial.
The attraction of the ideal has no traction on the real: on adversariality and roles in argument
(Taylor & Francis, 2018) Stevens, Katharina; Cohen, Daniel
If circumstances were always simple and all arguers were always exclusively concerned with cognitive improvement, arguments would probably always be cooperative. However, we have other goals and there are other arguers, so in practice the default seems to be adversarial argumentation. We naturally inhabit the heuristically helpful but cooperation-inhibiting roles of proponents and opponents. We can, however, opt for more cooperative roles. The resources of virtue argumentation theory are used to explain when proactive cooperation is permissible, advisable, and even mandatory – and also when it is not.