1 / 12

Approaches to Argumentation in Frost vs. Nixon Part II

Explore the possible routes in argumentation stage, with the protagonist Nixon defending against doubts raised by the antagonist Frost. Follow the discussion on obstruction of justice and significant evidences in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.

mfelder
Download Presentation

Approaches to Argumentation in Frost vs. Nixon Part II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Frost vs Nixon Part II

  2. POSSIBLE ROUTES IN THE ARGUMENTATION STAGE • Four types of possible doubts can be raised by the antagonist in the argumentation stage: (1) doubt concerning the standpoint, (2) doubt concerning the propositional content of the argument(s), (3) doubt concerning the justificatory force of the argument(s), (4) a counterargument. (Svačinová 2017)

  3. POSSIBLE ROUTES IN THE ARGUMENTATION STAGE • The protagonist reacting to or awaiting the doubt of a particular type chooses a relevant reaction in respect to the doubt. He can choose from various so-called dialectical routes to deal with this doubt and strengthen his argumentation: (1) remove the doubt concerning the standpoint, (2) remove the doubt concerning the propositional content of the argument(s), (3) remove the doubt concerning the justificatory force of the argument(s) (4) refute the counterargument (see van Poppel 2013, p. 81).

  4. Reconstructing a critical discussion • Frost vs Nixon • Context: aftermath of the Watergatescandal • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjKqibPnE5Y • Maincriticaldiscussion: obstruction of justice/no obstruction of justice • Roledistribution • Starting points • Arguments • Side discussion: failure to report collaborators to the FBI legitimate/notlegitimate

  5. FROST Quoting me out of context is not valid… What do we mean by…

  6. Protagonist: NixonHow does Frost counteract?

  7. Protagonist: NixonHow does Frost counteract?

  8. Reconstructing Nixon’s schemes 1.1 No obstruction true of Nixon Lack of motives true of Nixon Lack of motives is symptomatic of no obstruction 1.2 No obstruction true of Nixon Because “go ahead” true of Nixon And “go ahead” symptomatic of no obstruction 1.3 No obstruction of justice true of Nixon Because no evidence true of Nixon And no evidence is symptomatic of no obstruction 1.4a No obstruction true of Nixon Because thought money was for humanitarian purposes true of Nixon And Thinking money was for humanitarian purposes is symptomatic of no obstruction

  9. Protagonist: NixonHow does Frost counteract? Because you erased the tape, but in fact some evidence survived Then you should have reported them Delivered on top of phoneboots… Maybe no corrupt motives but actions would have lead to cover up But prior to that you tried to obstruct justice…

  10. Becauseyouerased the tape Islack of evidence a signthatyou are notguilty? but in fact some evidencesurvived COUNTERARGUMENT counterarargument Maybe no corrupt motives but actions would have lead to cover up IS NO CURRUPT MOTIVES SYMPTOMATIC OF NO OBSTRUCTION? But prior to that you tried to obstruct justice… DOES THAT STATEMENT PROVE THAT YOU DIDN’T WANT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE? Then you should have reported them Delivered on top of phoneboots…

  11. Routes followed by the antagonist (Frost) 1.1 no corruptmotives 1.2 Go ahead 1.3 no evidence 1.4° Thought money was for humanitarianpurposes • Antagonist raises doubts concerning the justificatory force of the argument • Antagonist raises doubts concerning the justificatory force of the argument • Antagonist raises doubts concerning the justificatory force of the argument + Counterargument • Antagonistchallenges the propositionalcontent of the argument*

  12. * SchemeunderlyingFrost’srejection of 1.4a could not be for humanitarianpurposestrue of the money Becauseexchanged on the top of phonebootstrue of the money And exchanging money on the top of phonebootsisnottypical of humanitarianpurposes

More Related