The Ideal Model of a Critical Discussion as a Theoretical Framework

In order to clarify the meaning of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentative discourse, an ideal model of a critical discussion has been formulated that is aimed at resolving a difference of opinion on the merits (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 2004). This model specifies the dialectical stages that have to be distinguished in resolving a difference of opinion, as well as the verbal moves that serve a constructive purpose in the different stages of the resolution process. The point of departure is that a difference of opinion is resolved only when the parties involved agree whether the controversial standpoint is acceptable or not. This means either that one party must be convinced through the other party’s argumentation that his standpoint is acceptable, or that the other party has to retract his standpoint, because he recognises that his argumentation is unable to withstand the criticism passed on it. Resolving a difference of opinion is not the same thing as settling a dispute. A dispute is settled when the difference of opinion has been ended one way or the other, for example, by means of a vote or because an outsider intervened. However, this does not have to mean that the difference of opinion has actually been resolved. The latter is only the case if a regulated exchange of arguments and criticism occurs and eventually leads to a common agreement about the acceptability or unacceptability of the standpoints under discussion