Volume 5, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Contemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about the ways in which, in the context of a public controversy, arguers should ideally present their arguments and criticize those of their opponents. We also know that in practice not all works out according to the ideal patterns: numerous kinds of derailments (fallacies) are an object of study for argumentation theorists. But how about the use of unfair vis-à-vis one’s opponents? What if it is not a matter of occasional derailments but of one party’s systematic refusal to take other parties seriously? What if one party continually forgoes any form of critical testing and instead resorts to threats or blackmail? Can this be countered by the tools of reason? Or should one pay one’s opponent back in the same coin? To gain some grasp of these issues, we describe a number of strategies used in the public controversy about induced earthquakes in Groningen. We check whether these strategies are i.e. and We also investigate the effects of the choice for a particular kind of strategy. It appears that, in circumstances, choosing a fair strategy may be detrimental for resolving the controversy and choosing an unfair one beneficial. Following up ideas from social psychology and political science, we formulate some guidelines for the choice of strategies. At the end, we stress the importance — especially for those whose opinions carry little weight — of having a society in which the knowledge and skills needed for assessing the fairness of strategies are widespread.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Amgoud, Leila , and Henri Prade
    2006 “Formal Handling of Threats and Rewards in a Negotiation Dialogue.” InArgumentation in Multi-agent Systems: Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 26, 2005: Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. by Simon Parsons , Nicolas Maudet , Pavlos Moraitis , and Iyad Rahwan , 88–103. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Axelrod, Robert
    1984The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanken, Henk
    2013a “Het lot van Loppersum [The fate of Loppersum].” Dagblad van het Noorden (Weekend, p.6), 18 May 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2013b “We zitten allemaal in een dooie hoek hier [We Are All in a Blind Spot Over Here].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p.4), 2 November 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013c “‘Ze zuigen het leeg en doen niets terug’ [‘They’re Sucking it Out and Do Nothing in Return’] Dagblad van het Noorden (p. 6), 9 April 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Deutsch, Morton
    2014 “Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict.” InThe Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, 3rd ed. ed. by Peter T. Coleman , Morton Deutsch , and Eric C. Marcus , 3–28. Somerset, NJ: John Wiley. First edition: San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dascal, Marcelo
    2008 “Dichotomies and Types of Debates.” InControversy, and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen , 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cvs.6.03das
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.6.03das [Google Scholar]
  8. de Veer, Johan
    2013a “NAM geeft gewoon niet thuis [NAM Simply doesn’t Answer].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p.22), 12 September 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013b “Mensen worden ongeduldig en steeds bozer [People are Getting Impatient and More and More Angry].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p.2), 5 December 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gabbay, Dov M. , and Woods, John
    2001a “Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic.” Synthese127 (1-2): 161–186. doi: 10.1023/A:1010370420383
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010370420383 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gabbay, Dov M. , and John Woods
    2001b “More on Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic.” Logic Journal of the IGPL9 (2): 321–339.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Govier, Trudy
    1997Social Trust and Human Communities. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jacobs, Scott
    1999 “Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics.” InProceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , Rob Grootendorst , J. Anthony Blair , and Charles A. Willard , 397–403. Amsterdam: SIC SAT.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2000 “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.” Argumentation14 (3): 261–286. doi: 10.1023/A:1007853013191
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007853013191 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2002 “Messages, Functional Contexts, and Categories of Fallacy: Some Dialectical and Rhetorical Considerations.” InDialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis ( Argumentation library 6), ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser , 119–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2009 “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Design in Argumentation. InPondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues ( Argumentation library 14), ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen .), 55–78. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson, Ralph H
    2000Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson, Ralph H. , and J. Anthony Blair
    1983Logical Self-defense, 2nd ed.Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. First ed. 1977.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Krabbe, Erik C.W
    2003 “Metadialogues.” InAnyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation ( Argumentation library 8), ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , J. Anthony Blair , Charles A. Willard , and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans , 83–90. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1078‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lewinski, Marcin , and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation28 (2): 161–185. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  21. Luyendijk, Wubby
    2014 “Het beven wordt eerst nog erger [Quaking Getting Worse to Start with].” NRC reader, 1 October 2014. www.nrcreader.nl/artikel/6966/het-beven-wordt-eerst-nog-erger
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2015 “Al een jaar belooft de NAM sommetjes over de risico’s [For a Year now NAM has been Promising to do Sums about the Risks].” NRC-Handelsblad, 27 January 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Meijer Commission
    2013Vertrouwen in een duurzame toekomst: Een stevig perspectief voor Noord-Oost Groningen: Eindadvies van de Commissie Duurzame Toekomst Noord-Oost Groningen [Trust in a Sustainable Future: A Solid Perspective for Northeast Groningen: Final Recommendations of the Committee Sustainable Future Northeast Groningen]. www.www.dialoogtafelgroningen.nl/?attachment_id=%20170
    [Google Scholar]
  24. NAM
    2012Lichte aardbeving bij Sappemeer [Light Earthquake Near Sappemeer]. Press release. www.nam.nl/nl/news/news-archive-2012/2012-08-17-aardbeving-noord-groningen.html
    [Google Scholar]
  25. RTV Noord
    2015 ‘VVD-kamerlid bespreekt gastactiek telefonisch in de trein.’ [Liberal MP Discusses Gas Tactics on Telephone in Train] RTV Noord (website), 17 January 2015. www.rtvnoord.nl/artikel/artikel.asp?p=143958 >
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sevink, Geert Job
    2013 De NAM bedrijft gewoon koehandel [The NAM is Just Engaged in Horse-trading]. Dagblad van het Noorden (p.2), 24 September 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. van Dalen, Roelof
    2013 ”In Westen denken ze dat beving kermisattractie is [In the West they Think a Quake is a Fairground Attraction].” Dagblad van het Noorden (p.4), 2 November 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. van Eemeren, Frans H
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2015 “Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-dialectics.” Argumentation30 (1): 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  30. van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. van Eemeren, Frans H. , Bart Garssen , and Bert Meuffels
    2012 ”Effectiveness through Reasonableness: Preliminary Steps to Pragma-dialectical Effectiveness Research.” Argumentation26 (1): 33–53. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9234‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9234-7 [Google Scholar]
  32. van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Peter Houtlosser
    2002.” Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse: A Delicate Balance.” InDialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis ( Argumentation library 6), ed by. Frans H. van Eemeren , and Peter Houtlosser , 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2007 ”Countering Fallacious Moves.” Argumentation21 (3): 243–252. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9051‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9051-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. van Laar, Jan Albert , and Erik C.W. Krabbe
    2016a. “Eerlijke en oneerlijke strategieën in maatschappelijke discussies [Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies].” InDe macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen [The Power of Language: Research in Speech Communication in The Netherlands and Flanders], ed. by Dorien Van De Mieroop , Lieven Buysse , Roel Coesemans en Paul Gillaerts , 131–143. Leuven: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2016b ”Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies: The Case of Induced Earthquakes.” InArgumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015, Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewinski , 343–362. London: College Publications (Studies in Logic and Argumentation 62).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2016c ”Splitting a Difference of Opinion.” In Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) , May 18-21, 2016, ed. by Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista . Windsor, ON: OSSA. To be published.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. van Sluis, Bas
    2012 De grond beeft [The Ground Quakes]. Dagblad van het Noorden (p.10), 1 September 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. van Veenen, Jelle , and Henry Prakken
    2006 “A Protocol for Arguing About Rejections in Negotiation.” InArgumentation in Multi-agent Systems: Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 26, 2005: Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. by Simon Parsons , Nicolas Maudet , Pavlos Moraitis , and Iyad Rahwan (Eds.)138–153. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Walton, Douglas N
    1995A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2007Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511619311
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619311 [Google Scholar]
  42. Walton, Douglas N. , and Erik C.W. Krabbe
    1995Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Wikipedia
    2014Aardgaswinning in Nederland [Natural Gas Extraction in the Netherlands]. Accessed19 November 2014. nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardgaswinning_in_Nederland#Bodemdaling_en_aardbevingen
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wodak, Ruth
    2011The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. First published in 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): (un)fairness; argumentation theory; fallacy; public controversy; strategy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error