The Potential Conflict Between Normatively-Good Argumentative Practice and Persuasive Success

Abstract

One recurring concern in argumentation studies is the interplay of descriptive and normative approaches to argument. For instance, (1993) have discussed problems encountered in using normative models to describe natural argumentative discourse. As another example, a number of studies have explored the degree to which ordinary arguers’ judgments of argument soundness align with independent normative assessments (e.g., van Eemeren & Meuffels, 2002). This chapter addresses a different but related aspect of the relationship of descriptive and normative concerns, by comparing the results of studies of factors influencing persuasive effectiveness (that is, research findings indicating what makes for persuasive success) against conceptions of normatively-desirable argumentative practice (particularly as suggested by the pragma-dialectical approach). The general question is that of the potential tension between practical persuasive success and normative directives about argumentative conduct. The nature and extent of such tension is an empirical question, and hence this chapter closely inspects existing persuasion research to see what light might be shed on whether (and the degree to which) persuaders face a choice between being normatively sound or practically persuasive.