Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
This Chapter is currently unavailable for purchase.

Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on &#8220;two sides of an issue&#8221; (pro and con). However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this chapter is to shed extra light on such &#8220;polylogical&#8221; clash of opinions in online deliberation, by examining the multi-layered participation in actual online debates. The examples are drawn from the readers&#8217; discussions on Osama bin Laden&#8217;s killing in online versions of two British newspapers: <i>The Guardian</i> and <i>The Telegraph</i>. As a result of the analysis, a distinction between <i>sides</i>, <i>positions</i>, and <i>cases</i> in argumentative deliberation is proposed.


This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address