Argumentation in Suboptimal Settings

Abstract When parties attempt to persuade their opponents of the tenability a certain standpoint using reasons, they will often find that circumstances dialogue hinder chances resolution. Power imbalances, cognitive biases, lack time or hidden interests are some need face. I label these as suboptimal settings for argumentation . According pragma-dialectical tradition, higher-order conditions critical discussion unfulfilled in cases (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Jacobs, & Jackson, 1993). The main question this paper is following: what normative standard follow arrive at resolution within such circumstances? defend middle-ground solution between two extreme ones. first position, anything-goes policy , claims that, given reasonable exchange reasons not satisfied, stands outside domain reason, so anything goes parties. second business usual since model, same rules should apply settings. Finally, supernormal we more general and comprehensive norm refer supernorm evaluate cases. divides into stages: preparation In stage, restore compensate suboptimality setting, while resolve disagreement. contend moves stage be evaluated by instead Eemeren Grootendorst 2004). At point, considers theoretical insights from Gilbert (1995, 1997, 2002) Jacobs (2000, 2006) understand entails.