Political Argumentation and

Persuasion
First part. Debates, Argumentation and Fallacies

Political argumentation

Political Campaign Debates = the only televised political

event capable of attracting the attention of the marginally
attentive citizenan increasingly larger segment of our
citizenry
Four conditions under which voters are most likely to find
debates useful Chaffee (1978, p. 342):
(1) when at least one of the candidates is relatively unknown
(2) when many voters are undecided
(3) when the race appears close
(4) when party allegiances are weak

The Role of Political Messages

1. Debates - greatest influence on highly interested, yet undecided

voters and less influence on those marginally interested voters, or the
occasional debate watchers, as well as those committed partisans who
view debates for reassurance that theirs is indeed the superior
candidate. HOWEVER : Although the undecided and uncommitted
citizen = a smaller segment of the debate viewing audience, it is exactly
this slice of the electorate to which most general-election campaign
messages are targeted
2. Debates encourages citizens to overcome any tendency for selective
exposure as viewers report roughly equal levels of learning from both
the candidate whom they support as well as from the opposition
candidate
3. Messages incorporate a dual strategy of highlighting issue differences
while also emphasizing a positive self-image and a negative opponent
image.
Debate viewers make judgments about those [image] traits based on the
strategies the debaters employ, their issue choices, their demeanor . . .
their willingness to address the questions directly, and the manner in
which they attack their opponents (Carlin (2000) 170).

General trends in the analysis of

political debates:
The least developed arguments, particularly in terms of providing less evidence
to support ones claims, is apparently judged more favorably by debate
viewers (Levasseur and Dean (1996); Bryski (1978))
Debate performance = by understanding how candidates violate expectations
both positive and negative violations (Pfau (1987))
The process of candidate image formation/evaluation the application of
stereotyping theory (Zhu, Milavsky, and Biswas (1994))
The media effect: It may well be that the presss interpretation of the debate . . . is
more important in determining the impact on the electorate than is the debate
itself (Chaffee and Dennis 1979: 85).
Ways of analyzing the political messages:
a. Normative Democratic Theory - debates contribute to a more enlightened and
rational electorate better equipped to make an informed voting decision
b. Agenda-Setting
c. Uses and Gratifications how and why citizens use campaign debates and how
these campaign messages are evaluated in terms of their usefulness to voters (
a desire to learn about candidates; issue positions, to compare candidate
personalities, and to gain information that will allow them to cast their votes)

Argumentation and
Debate Theory

Argumentation and Debate Theory:

Argumentation = a verbal, social and rational activity aimed at

convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by
putting forward a constellation of one or more propositions to justify
this standpoint. Means of resolving differences of opinion (implicit in
the context - or explicit disagreement on a given standpoint)
Standpoint = proposition in which a certain property or quality is
ascribed to the persons or things referred to (description facts or
events, prediction, judgment, advice). = seldom an utterance whose
acceptability is clearly evident (positive or negative position (doubt).
differences in the force and scope.
Key words: Standpoints: We are of the opinion that, I think that, If you ask me, I believe,
My Conclusion, Therefore, Im convinced OR The way I see it, In short, All things considered,
What we need to agree on. Expressing doubts vs negative standpoints: I dont know
whether, Im not entirely sure, Im not yet convinced

A critical discussion = an ideal of argumentative discourse aimed at

resolving a difference of opinion by determining whether the
standpoints at issue ought to be accepted or not. 4 stages: the
confrontation, opening, argumentation and concluding stages
(difference resolving, settling it ex majority decides lets vote)

Structure of Argumentation

1. Multiple argumentation = more than one alternative defense of the

same standpoint (could theoretically stand alone) - the
unacceptability of one part of multiple argumentation = the rest of
argumentation still stands
Key words: another reason for this is, in the first place, secondly,
incidentally, aside from
2. Coordinative argumentation = several arguments taken together
constitute the defense of a standpoint. Dependence each argument
in itself can be too weak to conclusively support the standpoint, or
when the second argument rules out possible objections to the first
argument. - the unacceptability of one part -> the whole
defense is weaken
Key words: as well as the fact that, in addition, on top of that, even
3. Subordinative arguments => arguments and supporting arguments,
the defense is made layer by layer, each supporting argument is
really the beginning of a new round of argumentation. One weak link
in the chain of arguments undermines the strength of the whole
Key words: because, for that reason, therefore, that is why, since

The analysis of argumentation

Complex argumentation all complex arguments should be broken down

into single arguments. Each argument judged to the degree to which it
justifies the proposition to which the standpoint refers. However, a
standpoint is not necessarily true because it was defended successfully
(Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
3 conditions:
A. Acceptability of the arguments (factual statements, common values
and judgments)
B. The validity of reasoning (logical valid, there is one situation when the
valid reasoning does not guarantee the argument is conclusive: ifthen
formulation modus ponens and modus tollens
Modus ponens (1) if A then B (2) A Therefore (3) B
Modus tollens (1) if A, then B (2) Not B Therefore (3) Not A
NOTA BENE : Invalid counterparts of modus ponens and modus
tollens:
IF A then B but B therefore A
IF A then B, but not A then B
C. Schemes of argumentation

Schemes of argumentation (1)

Schemes of argumentation (1)

1. Symptomatic = the standpoint supported by citing a certain sign of what is

claimed in the standpoint (typical certain group, characteristic of a certain situation,
quality of a certain personality) = argumentation of concomitance
A is true of B, because C is true of B and : C is symptomatic of A
Critical question: Are there also non A that they have the characteristic C? or Are
there also other A that do not have the characteristic C? Or are the examples
quoted representatives or sufficient to justify generalization?
Ex: The behavior of politicians makes clear that our democracy has become much
more corrupt
Key words: It is characteristic, it is typical, its natural for, the way they are, is typical
Main Fallacies:
Populist fallacies (argumentum ad populum) = the opinion of a number of people is
used in arguing for the acceptance of a standpoint
Fallacy of abuse of authority (Argumentum ad verecundiam) =a proposition is
presented as acceptable because some person or a written source inappropriately
presented as an authority says that it is so.
Fallacy of hasty generalization (Secundum quid) Generalizing on the evidence of too
few observations

Schemes of argumentation (2)

2. Analogy = a standpoint is defended by showing that something referred to a in the

standpoint is similar to something that is cited in the argumentation. It must be
determined whether the cases are comparable
A is true of B because A is true of C and C is comparable to B
Key words: Is like, is comparable to, is similar to, corresponds to, is related to, is
reminiscent of
Critical questions: Are there significant differences between C and B?
Ex1: Politics is a spectacle, reported by the media and witnessed by parts of the public. It
attracts attention because, as an ambiguous text, it becomes inflused that reassure or
threaten. The construction of diverse meanings for describing political events shapes support
for causes and legitimizes value allocation. (Murray Edelman, Reflections on Symbolism and
Politics; 1984)
Ex2: The theory of the polls is essentially simplistic, based on a tremendously exaggerated notion
of the immediacy and urgency of the connection of public opinion and events. The result is that
sometimes we seem to be interviewing the fish in the sea to find out what the birds in the
heavens are doing. ( E. E. Schattschneider)

Main Fallacies: Fallacy of false analogy

Schemes of argumentation (3)

3. Causal = a standpoint is defended by making a causal connection

between the argument and the standpoint
A is true of B because C is true of B and B leads to A
Critical questions: Does B always lead to A?
Key words: Then, because, otherwise, leads to
Ex: With the growth of market economy arose the sphere of the social which broke the
fetters of domination bases on landed estate and necessitated forms of administration
invested with state authority. In the measure to which it was linked to market exchange,
production was disengaged from its functions of public authority; conversely political
administration was released from production tasks For this reason even the reversal of
this tendency, that is, the increasing state interventionism very noticeable from the last
quarter of the 19th century onward, did not per se lead to an interlocking of the public
sphere with the private realm

Main Fallacies:
i. Confusing facts with value judgments Argumentum as consequentiam. It
supports an argument with a factual proposition, an argument is advanced that
is normative because it points the negative elements of a standpoint ex It is not
true, because I dont want it to be true
ii. Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore, because of this)
iii. Fallacy of slippery slope=pragmatic argumentation=adopting a certain
course of action will inevitably predict negative consequences

FALLACIES 2 = violations in the

argumentative process

To declare certain standpoints as sacrosanct or taboo

1. Argumentum ad baculum fallacy of the stick = to restrict the other
party from freely putting forward his criticism (there are going to be
consequences for your actions)
2. Argumentum ad misericordiam= appeal to pity playing on
emotions
3. Argumentum ad hominem = a personal attack not directed toward
the standpoints but at the person itself:
i. direct personal attack insulting someone is abusive variant stupid
ii. indirect personal attack = circumstantial variant = suspicion is cast on
the partys motives suggesting a personal interest
iii. you also variant = to quoque = to attack the credibility by pinpointing
out a contradiction ex past and present declarations

In the argumentation

Shifting the Burden of Proof Rule in the Argumentation = the burden of proof the
party who wants to change the status quo=status of presumption
Eluding the Burden of Proof = presenting the standpoint as something that does not
need a proof or making it immune to criticism because it cannot be tested, by nature,
essentially
Misrepresentation of standpoints Fallacy of straw man = attribute to the opponent a
standpoint that can be attacked more easily (oversimplifying or exaggeration)
Attributing a fictious standpoint to the opponent instead of recognizing the existing one
= reference to so called characteristics of the group the opponent is a part, or emphatic
distortion, general expression such as nearly everyone thinks, everyone has been
saying(Fallacy of division and fallacy of contribution=attributing a property of the
whole to the component and vice versa ex Cabinet is indecisive => Ministers are indecisive )

Irrelevant argumentation = the standpoint is defended with means other than

argumentation Ignoratio elenchi the protagonist distorts the standpoint, the standpoint

is easier to defend = putting forward argumentation relevant only to a standpoint that is not the
one at issue

Pathetic fallacy= playing on emotions of the audience, feelings of security and loyalty
Ethical fallacy of abuse of authority - argumentum ad verecundiam =claiming a non
existent or non applicable expertise
Protagonist fallacy presenting a controversial proposition as a presuppositionex
formulation of a question misleading implying a common starting point something
that was a quarrelEx : I cannot understand why the government doest do
something about its internal instability
Fallacy of circular reasoning petitio principii: Discrimination is a punishable offense
because it is against the law

Political Communication
general overview
Franklin 1995: political communication = the analysis of
1.
Political content of the media
2.
Actors and agencies involved in the production of content
3.
The effect
4.
The impact of the political system on the media
5.
The impact of the media system on the political system

WHY DO POLITICIANS AND VOTERS NEED TO COMMUNICATE AT ALL?

The Americanization and modernisation of politics central determinant of
political power and social structure
New media technologies= new form of political communication not MASS
Based but rather CITIZEN driven (Gibson &Rommele 2008)
The personalisation of political messages- information shortcut in the
comprehension of complex policies

Parties and political communication

The evolution of political parties = dependent or
interdependent variable in what concerns political
communication?
HYPOTHESIS: The demise of the mass party and the emergence
of new forms of party organisations shift in focus of the
parties away from inward concerns with party members
towards more outward concerns with voters (cartel model, electoral
party, party in government concept etc)

New industry expansion: consultants, databases, opinion polling,

surveys reducing the role of parties as mobilisers
=> The decline of political parties = concentration of the decision making power
wihin a narrow circle of political elites, organisational reforms (party primaries
and not party delegates), increasing campaign spending ( political patronage
and state colonnisation by the political parties)
Varience over the time and pace of professionaloized political communication
of the political parties ex in GB Conservative style late 70s, Labour in Tony
Blair era, Germany 1998 SPD Schroder but CDU starting with 1972

Rachel K. Gibbson, Andrea Rommelle, Political communication, in Daniele

Caramani, Comparative Politics, Oxford University Press, 2008.
Since the early 1990s parties are seen as facing new challenges with the
rising number of swing voters and weakening party identification, the
process of individuality and modernization are increasingly pushing the
political campaigns [] This new era of uncertainty is marked by increasing
efforts by the parties to reach individual voters. the demise of mass
party and its replacement new models of organization, showing a shift in
focus of parties from inward concerns with party members and activists
towards more outward concerns with voters.>>>it is clear that parties at
some stage must be consciously involved in the uptake of new ways of
political communication: It is a process that involves extensive senior-level
decision-making , organizational reform and financial muscle< Such a
change could not simply be foisted on parties but would require consent.
(pp. pp. 478-479, 481)

Peter Mair, Wolfgang C. Mller, and Fritz Plasser, Conclusion: Political

Parties in Changing Electoral Markets, in IDEM (ed.), Political Parties
and Electoral Change Party Responses to Electoral Markets , Sage, 2004.
The timing here may not be coincidental. In moving beyond the mass party, in
enhancing the power and flexibility of the party top, and in privileging their
party organization through the provision of state resources and a more
generalized form of partitocrazia, the political leaders may have responded
effectively to the burgeoning uncertainties within electoral markets. At the
same time, however, by so doing, they may have unwittingly exposed
themselves to the criticisms of an increasingly disenchanted electorate.
Moreover, by fudging lines of political conflict, and by giving perhaps more
attention to the demands of partyparty relationships than to partyvoter
relationships, they may have offered further impetus to those voters who
feel neglected in representational terms. What this implies, then, is that the
set of responses that parties developed in order to deal with a dealigned
electoral market the responses of well- resourced, professional campaign
organizations may be one of the factors that is currently stimulating the
growth of anti-party sentiment. In other words, the party response to one
set of problems may have provoked yet others, and these might well prove
more difficult for the parties to resolve.

ELECTORAL TECHNIQUES AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING

2 Phases in political campaigning:

A.
Premodern era = strenght of local organisations, door to door
campaigning
New constraints: electoral volatility, deacrease in party identification, new
channels of communicaiton, new electoral techniques = focus groups, PR
etc)
B. Communication from party organisations towards mass communication
between party and voters

PLASSER 2000: Shopping model vs. Adoption model

Adopting new techniques US campaigns adaptation of the
electoral routines by taking into consideration the political
context. The electoral system, the cultural limits, media structure
etc.
Vs
- Establishing different techniques that can easly be implemented in
the national context shopping model

3 main evolutions
a.
The invention of public opinion (surveys)
b.
The media change = agenda & politicization of media
= independence
c.
The increasing media exposure of politics =
television => political reply

Communication and political actors

a.
Political advertising, PR& the political side

A. Advertising
Political ads = major means of communicating in different campaigns (paid
political advertising) =paid placement of organizational messages in the media
aiming at convincing voters to support a candidate and taking into consideration
the domestic and world events of issues that concern public voting during the
electoral process. They address important political issues while presenting a
picture of the candidates profile
3
-

functions: 1. inform 2. to persuade 3. entretain

Target a general or specific audiences
Emotions, language, factual claims and mediatic means- style to influence voters
The tone of an ad: inspirational, hopeful, frightening, sarcastic
Technical elements and editing: voice-over, dialogues, sound effects

Form : sound bites, few key words, 30-60 seconds, complete control of
the coding structure, gives meaning to the perspective purchasers =
the electorate
The increasing campaign spending
- spots 25 % success of the exposure to such messages
Differences US and GB regarding electoral advertising (television)
SOURCES> http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/

General Mechanisms

Politics/leaders = product = individualized

Campaign Ads= Marketing political soap
Strategies:
1.
Familiar elements = significance
2.
Authority argument = scientifically elements (2008 elections in Spain)
3.
Nostalgia
4.
Value transfer = (cultural and political leaders that recommend a certain
candidate)
Constructing public profiles &Commercials
US : First electoral sports = Eisenhower = spontaneity =meetings with citizens 1952, Condensed
version, Myths and symbols = social behaviorist approaches = motivation
Negative Campaigning Lyndon Johnson = the negative characteristics of the opposing
team/candidate 90s 70% of the ads =negative
TYPOLOGY: Primitive spots (Eisenhower Answers America), Talking Head = issues, Conceptual=
important candidate info G.W.Bush Senior= experience, Clinton- Change, Cinema verite =
people person, Personal testimonies (vox populi, public figures, neutral reporterjournalistic impression)
Bates and Diamond 1992 in McNair 2003 : The US typical campaign phases

1. basic identity of the candidate = good record of political behavior JFK, G.W. Bush, 2.
Candidates policies = vague and emotional charge Bill Clinton 1992 Its the economy
stupid?, Obama Joe the Plumber, 3. Attacking the opponent = negative campaign, 4.
Candidate = a positive meaning

Measuring public opinion

Public opinion and democratic theory

Representative democracy = critical and informed citizens (N. Bobbio)
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verbas The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations (1963), = 3 dimensions cognitive, emotional
and evaluative
Pippa Norris, Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance,
Oxford University Press, 1999
Gap between evaluations of the ideal and the practice of democracy.
Critical public of the performance of their governing regimes.
"These days we tend to believe that public opinion is the aggregation of
individual opinions as measured by the sample survey.... This definition is
now hegemonic; when most of us consider the meaning of public opinion,
we can't help but think about polls or surveys." (Susan Herbst 1995)
Public opinion polls :
a. a measure of political attitudes and intentions of a given point in time
b. causal factor in voting behavior

Source: Noelle-Neumann (1991).

Measuring and
biases 1
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann,
The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion
Our Social Skin, Chicago Univ Press, 1993.

1) "quasi-statistical organ," a sixth-sense = the prevailing public

opinion, even without access to polls,
2) fear of isolation & anticipate the likelihood of being socially isolated
3) people are reticent in expressing minority views
Observations made in one context spread to another and encouraged
people either to proclaim their views or to swallow them and keep
quiet until, in a spiraling process, the one view dominated the public
scene and the other disappeared form public awareness as its
adherents became mute. This is the process than can be called a
spiral of silence (Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, p.5)

Measuring and biases: 2

Opinion pools= demonstration effect =

cueing undecided voters of which
party the majority is supporting =self-fulfilling prophecies

There are three ways in which it is said that pools might influence people.
The first argument is that voters are likely to support whomever the
polls show to be in the lead, so they have the satisfaction of voting for
the winning side. This is known as the bandwagon effect, as people jump
on the bandwagon of the leading party
However, it is also possible that people will react against the party in
front, particularly if they are a long way in front, as they do not wish
to see a government with a very large majority. This is called a backlash
effect.
The final theory has the same effect as the second, as the entire opposite of
the bandwagon effect, but for different reasons. This theory argues that
people are inclined to support whomever is trailing as underdog
effect, much as is often seen in the field of sports, where the crows roots for
the team or the player who is losing.
(Nick Moon, Opinion polls. History, theory and practice, Manchester University Press, 1999, p. 208)

A Critical view on public opinion

exaggerated notion
of the immediacy and urgency of the connection of public opinion and
events. The result is that sometimes we seem to be interviewing the fish
in the sea to find out what the birds in the heavens are doing.
doing.
The theory of the polls is essentially simplistic, based on a tremendously

( E. E. Schattschneider)

Opinion polls and public opinion. A

critical view 1
1. Normative appeals to opinion polls => a particular
conception of democratic representation
Hanna Pitkin's (1967) Burkean trustees (representation=acting independently
but in the best interests of their constituents) vs Millsean delegates
(representation = direct mandates of their constituents)

2. Critical perspective on the notion of public opinion

Jiirgen Habermas (1989)& Benjamin Ginsberg (1986), The Captive Public: How
Mass Opinion. Promotes State Power. New York: Basic Books, 1986
survey research = bureaucratic necessity to "domesticate" the sentiments of
their electorate = "manufacture" legitimacy and consent that might
otherwise not exist.
"Polling has contributed to the domestication of opinion by helping to
transform it from a politically potent, often disruptive force into a more
docile, plebiscitary phenomenon." (Ginsberg, 1986)

Opinion polls and public opinion. A

critical view 2
b. Pierre BOURDIEU , Public Opinion Does Not Exist, 1974
3

tacit tenets at the basis of polls:

1. citizens - an informed opinion
2. all opinions are equal
3. a prior consensus on the questions worthy of being posed

Public opinion = is a pure and simple artefact whose function is to dissimulate

the fact that the state of the opinion at a given moment is a system of forces, of
tensions.

3. Empirical dimension of the critiques

Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro, Politicians Don't Pander. Political
Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness, 1993
institutional developments => easier for politicians to use public opinion
constructively => decreased responsiveness to the public
the strategic use of polling & "crafted talk" => encourage politicians to
ignore public opinion.

 Politicians respond to public opinion, then, but in two quite different

ways. In one, politicians assemble information on public opinion
to design government policy. This is usually equated with
"pandering," and this is most evident during the relatively short
period when presidential elections are imminent. The use of public
opinion research here, however, raises a troubling question: why has
the derogatory term "pander" been pinned on politicians who respond
to public opinion? The answer is revealing: the term is deliberately
deployed by politicians, pundits, and other elites to belittle government
responsiveness to public opinion and reflects a long-standing fear,
uneasiness, and hostility among elites toward popular consent and
influence over the affairs of government.

Politicians respond to public opinion in a second mannerthey use

research on public opinion to pinpoint the most alluring words,
symbols, and arguments in an attempt to move public opinion to
support their desired policies. Public opinion research is used by
politicians to manipulate public opinion, that is, to move Americans to
"hold opinions that they would not hold if aware of the best available
information and analysis" (Zaller 1992, 313). Their objective is to
simulate responsiveness. Their words and presentations are crafted to
change public opinion and create the appearance of responsiveness as
they pursue their desired policy goals. Intent on lowering the potential
electoral costs of subordinating voters' preferences to their policy goals,
politicians use polls and focus groups not to move their positions closer
to the public's but just the opposite: to find the most effective means to
move public opinion closer to their own desired policies. (Jacobs &
Shapiro, 1993)

New media. New ways of

communicating politics
Web 1.0 communication 1993 Mosaic, 1994 onward political parties
organisations but also institutions basic usage of the internet, first gov site
US 2000
First political websites 1994 => homogeneity and uniformity of the
websites content (short presentation of the party history, key points of the
political platform, download section, newsrooms for press realeases, email,
search engines) + chat rooms, RSS or wireless news feeds via PDA
Websites, 2nd phase of digital communication, a new era of digital
communication in disseminating the message of a new media force :
blogging, personal accounts profile =
decentralising political
communication
E-democracy = promoting their own image via internet
Electoral statistics: GB in 2005 15% of the internet consummers, US 1996 4%
and in 2004 29%, Australia 2004 29%
Electoral outcome: max 2%
WEB 2.0 = major shift web design and Socialsoftware, participatory net

Pippa Norris, Will New Technology Boost Turnout? in Norbert

Kersting, Harald Baldersheim, Electronic Voting and Democracy
A Comparative Analysis, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2004
The use of electronic technologies in elections can be regarded as
building upon other increasingly common electoral and political uses of
the Internet for information and communications, such as the use of
websites and e-mail by parties, candidates and interest groups, the
publication of election results online, the provision of voter registration
facilities, and the use of the Internet for the submission, collection and
disclosure of campaign finance.even if the technical and social
equality issues could be overcome, there are few grounds to believe
that adopting remote e-voting from home or work on a wide-scale basis
would radically improve turnout. The introduction of remote e-voting
would probably have a modest impact upon the younger generation, if
judged by the available evidence from the British pilot studies, but
automatic postal ballots are far more effective in improving
participation among the older generation, as well as being cheaper and
more efficient to administer. Remote e-voting is therefore unlikely to
prove a magic ballot. Echnological quick fixes, while superficially
attractive, cannot solve long-term and deep-rooted civic ills. Yet this
does not mean that we should abandon all hope of modernizing
elections; the impact of all-postal voting proved positive and highly
significant(Pippa Norris, Will New Technology Boost Turnout? in
Norbert Kersting, Harald Baldersheim, Electronic Voting and
Democracy A Comparative Analysis, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2004,
p.222)

New era of political communication:

WEB2.0
1. Informational pluralism sources and distribution : networks
2. Increased role of key players such as the information
broker services = developing reputation in virtual settings
regarding the relyability of the information provided by the
website
3. Dynamic political content = transfer from and to traditional
forms of media through different platforms
4. Buttom up communication = a detailed analysis of political
elites and political power = citizen journalism and social
networks supporting a political cause, surveys regarding
different policies = deliberative democracy ( Estonia Today I
decide)