Representing the Structure of a Debate

Maralee Harrell University of California, San Diego

Abstract

AbstractIn this article I aim to use the 1948 Russell-Copleston debate to highlight some recent problems I have experienced teaching argument analysis in my philosophy courses. First, I will use argument diagramming to represent the arguments in the debate while reflecting on the use of this approach use to teach argument analysis skills. Then, I will discuss the tools and methods scholars have proposed to represent debates, rather than just individual arguments. Finally, I will argue that there is not, but needs to be, a good way to represent argumentative debates in a way that neither obscures the essential details of the exchange nor becomes too unwieldy to extract a sense of the overall debate.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2022-12-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-022-09586-2
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 12 works outside this index ↓
  1. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2003. Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Jour…
    Journal of Logic and Computation  
  2. Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic…
    Artificial Intelligence  
  3. Harrell, M. 2011. Argument Diagramming and Critical Thinking in Introductory Philosophy. Higher Education Res…
    Higher Education Research & Development  
  4. Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education
  5. How Philosophers Argue: An Adversarial Collaboration on the Russell–Copleston Debate
  6. McLaren, B., O. Scheuer, M. Harrell, and A. Weinberger. 2011. Will Structuring the Collaboration of Students …
  7. Peldszus, A., and M. Stede. 2013. From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: A survey. Internat…
    International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence  
  8. Reed, C., D. Walton, and F. Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law, and artificial intelligence. T…
    The Knowledge Engineering Review  
  9. Twardy, C. R. 2004. Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking. Teaching Philosophy 27: 95–116.
    Teaching Philosophy  
  10. van Gelder, T. 2003. Enhancing Deliberation through Computer Supported Visualization. In Visualizing, and Arg…
  11. van Gelder, T., M. Bissett, and G. Cumming. 2004. Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journ…
  12. Yoshimi, J. 2004. Mapping the Structure of Debate. Informal Logic 24 (1): 1–21.
    Informal Logic